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

[GaryTaylor]

Whats stunning is the argument of what authority the Bishop of Rome indeed had and has, while the opposing side completely misused its authority.

And this is proposed as evidence to an individual See’s authority? Absurd. When we define authority properly its to serve, not my guards held me captive and I couldn’t come, then refuse to respond to 2 more letters. This is what one calls authority properly executed?

Here we have the documented side historically, I see no other side presented. Whats presented is a “kinda” idea that should hold water? And its suggested the TRUE SIDE exists yet it is not presented? Romes side which is indeed factual, is considered polemical? I call that being confused.

Here’s a quote by Chimo above “I do not believe the Pope had any other authority” which by no means distracts from his post which I thought was excellent.

But that quote begs the question,

What other “authority” does the Pope need but that “given by Jesus Christ the Living God”? Does someone need “more” authority than this? Seems to me this authority went to peoples heads. And while still in denial of Peters Chair, we have those who want to run their authority up the flagpole and somehow believe that defiance is equated to properly given Authority by God? Wow.

This authority became confused and misused and by many throughout, but none of this distracts from the original plan.

Stunning is right, perhaps we ought to address what in fact authority is and how it is properly applied. No one lacked in God given authority its been “misused”. And in this case in Alexandria, nothing is provided to indicate otherwise.

You either have the opposite side in factual time historically or the middle of the road side, neither exist to any degree on here from what I see. Only the strange idea we should accept whats “suggested” but in fact not provided. Basically it states “we have evidence” just not here in court today.

As I suggested earlier in this thread, I’m not here to overestimate the Popes authority, but it sure seems others have overestimated the authority of their own See. That’s not your little world to do as you please. It part of the whole which in effect works as one unit. Your expected to do yours, and when you fall short your accountable. Course that’s if one desires to be part of whole, or a world unto itself. What I see is rogue called truth. Absolutely no one working as a unit, puffed out chests with this misguided idea of authority, and this leads to no proper execution,Equates to failure. There is NO EXISTING analogy that could be provided which equates to this insane understanding of authority.

Where, education, business, athletics? This illusion of the mind doesn’t exist with those who desire to achieve. No one ever worries about those who in fact do their job and hold up to their responsibility. Its those who don’t who in fact are the concern, and “always”. And the concern increase’s as the responsibility of others does, because the “whole” in now lacking.

Authority doesn’t control, it guides to steady the course, thus obtain the goal. And there is no authority outside of the authority. That’s called ego, a figment of the imagination, illusion. We have rogue with proper succession. That’s what you have.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I disagree. Again, if it were otherwise, why were they writing to him to explain what they had already done?

You’re conflating two letters, Cyril’s and the Council’s. Your position is Cyril was seeking a consensus, which I convered in my last post along with the reason the Council wrote to the Pope.

It would be rather silly to call a council, make all kind of decisions, decrees, pronouncements, etc. and then write to the Roman Pope in hopes that he’ll ratify them. What if he doesn’t?

First, if he can’t ratify their decision, either in whole or in part (which is unlikely), they go back to work to bring their decision in line with the doctrine of the Church. If they’re defining doctrine, there’s little chance they would get it wrong in the first place since ecumenical councils have the guidance of the Holy Spirit just as the pope does.

So I’m afraid the picture you are painting is an overly simplistic one.

The one you’re painting, driven by politics and bad blood, is a lot more complicated than it has to be,

ISee above for two counterexamples to this idea. I know Rome is the center of your ecclesiastical universe, but it is not so for all of us.

No kidding. I’m not interested in other examples, which change the subject. We’re talking about the Council’s letter to the Pope, which acknowledged he had made a determination and witnessed to it. The Council’s decision conformed to the Pope’s determination. ‘Determination’ has a meaning, which I am taking into account and which you’re ignoring.

I…it is entirely appropriate to emphasize that he is the Pope of Rome in order to emphasize my belief, which is the Orthodox belief, that every Patriarch has a particular canonical territory which is within his governance, i.e., there is no universal jurisdiction.

It is agreed that every Patriarch has a canonical territory which is within his governance. To then say, as if it automatically followed, that there is no universal jurisdiction, is to say there is no universal truth and no central authority. We see where that concept has gotten the Protestants, don’t we?

Here’s a couple of hypothetical questions: Do you think, if there had been a central authority in Orthodoxy, Moscow would have been allowed to poach Ukraine? Do you think Russian bishops would have been allowed to work for the KGB?

INo. Plenty of things that the Roman Popes have approved of were not taken up by the rest of the church: clerical celibacy, Papal supremacy, Papal Petrine exclusivism (e.g., the apparent belief that the Roman See is the sole See of Peter, to the exclusion of Antioch), many modern dogmas, etc. The Roman Pope is not the be all and end all of the faith. The sad case of Honorius should be more than enough of an example of why that can’t be so.

It’s a little sad, at this juncture, to see you dump all your prejudices into what, until now had been a serious and respectful discussion.

Let me say, half the things you mention are related to customs and Church discipline, which are not doctrinal. ‘Papal supremacy’ is not defined by you, ‘exclusivism’ is an emotional accusation and ‘the exclusion of Antioch’ is a made-up complaint used solely for the purpose of complaining. The remainder are political and beyond the parameters of this discussion.

INo, no, no…you seem to think that’s what I think, but that’s not what I think.

I’m talking about the letters between St. Cyril and the Pope and from the Council to the Pope. You have not dealt with the substance of those letters, but define them as rote proceedings mirroring previous practices. Just “seeking his support” because other bishops did is making the whole thing a meaningless tradition. That’s what I cannot agree with. The letters had content to them; they were written for a higher purpose than the mere consensus you assign to them. The Pope told St. Cyril to take with him the authority of the papal See. That seems insignificant to you. I am arguing from specific facts and you’re arguing from generalities. Facts tend to make the case. Generalities are not admissible.

II’ve addressed this already, but just to be absolutely clear: The conciliar model of early church governance (which is to say, the model of early church governance) included the Pope of Rome during Rome’s orthodox period. So it wasn’t just a formality or a pleasantry on the part of other bishops that they should seek his support. Just the same, as several examples have already shown, he wasn’t the be-all and end-all of Church governance, just as St. Peter, who is recognized as foremost among the apostles by the Orthodox Church, was not the expositor of the faith at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, where he was withstood by St. Paul for his acceptance (temporarily) of the Judaizing tendencies popular in the Church at that time.

See above.

First you say seeking the support of the pope wasn’t just a formality, then you imply it was irrelevant because 'he wasn’t the be-all and end-all of Church governance." thereby having it both ways. My argument is on the record and you have done nothing to persuade me I should reconsider it.

 

[dzheremi]

You’re conflating two letters, Cyril’s and the Council’s. Your position is Cyril was seeking a consensus, which I convered in my last post along with the reason the Council wrote to the Pope.

Oops. I think you’re right. I got confused as to which letter we were talking about. Apologies for my mistake. But I do think that they are both seeking consensus, yes, because I think that the early church model of governance (continued in the Orthodox Church) was conciliar, not with the Roman Pope having universal jurisdiction, which I view as an innovation.

First, if he can’t ratify their decision, either in whole or in part (which is unlikely), they go back to work to bring their decision in line with the doctrine of the Church. If they’re defining doctrine, there’s little chance they would get it wrong in the first place since ecumenical councils have the guidance of the Holy Spirit just as the pope does.

Doesn’t this handicap the Holy Spirit, then? If councils are guided by the same Holy Spirit (or guided to the same degree, or however you’d want to put it), but still need to “ratified” by the Roman Pope, then what does that say about the Holy Spirit? God needs to be ratified by the Pope in order to be binding or whatever?

The one you’re painting, driven by politics and bad blood, is a lot more complicated than it has to be,

I disagree with the part about ‘bad blood’ (at least in reference to the early councils agreed upon as ecumenical by what would become known as the OO, EO, and RC communions), but otherwise this seems spot on. I say that, however, with the knowledge that there were and are political aspects to all of our relations. It’s kind of impossible to escape the political dimensions of the councils when canonical territories were at stake (if you don’t think that who presided over what or who had whose support had political ramifications, you probably need to study the texts of the councils a little more closely).

The Council’s decision conformed to the Pope’s determination. ‘Determination’ has a meaning, which I am taking into account and which you’re ignoring.

They didn’t have the Pope’s determination until after they’d already acted (with his legates representing him, sure), so I’m not sure how you mean that. As for “determination”, I know that that means, thank you, and it fits very well with what the letter itself says about Rome’s process and role in things.

It is agreed that every Patriarch has a canonical territory which is within his governance. To then say, as if it automatically followed, that there is no universal jurisdiction, is to say there is no universal truth and no central authority.

No it isn’t. That’s a red herring.

We see where that concept has gotten the Protestants, don’t we?

Irrelevant baiting. The Orthodox are not Protestants, and rejection of Roman overreaching did not start with Luther in Europe. Would that it were that simple!

Here’s a couple of hypothetical questions: Do you think, if there had been a central authority in Orthodoxy, Moscow would have been allowed to poach Ukraine? Do you think Russian bishops would have been allowed to work for the KGB?

Do you think that I, as a Coptic Orthodox person, spend any time thinking about such things? That’s silly. These are not very well-formed questions, and as far as I can tell, are pointless distractions from talking about the Orthodox Church supposedly “submitting” to the Roman Pope. Inter-EO relations are of no real interest to me, or relevance to this thread.

It’s a little sad, at this juncture, to see you dump all your prejudices into what, until now had been a serious and respectful discussion.

I fail to see how listing a few of the things that Rome believes that other churches do not is “dumping all (my) prejudices” into anything. Isn’t it better to assume good faith/charitable interpretation of a post you might not agree with then assume that everyone is out to get you and slander your church?

(cont’d below)

 

[dzheremi]

Let me say, half the things you mention are related to customs and Church discipline, which are not doctrinal.

Hmm. Well it’s good to know that universal jurisdiction is somehow optional! We can stop having this conversation now.

‘Papal supremacy’ is not defined by you

It doesn’t have to be. Earlier Catholic sources, such as “The Catholic Layman” (vol. 5, No. 56, August 1856) had no trouble writing about Rome’s “supremacy…over all other churches” where modern writers might talk about “universal jurisdiction” or some such. It amounts to the same idea: The Pope of Rome is the head of the universal church, and all others are subject to him (usually by reference to St. Peter as the head of the apostles).

‘exclusivism’ is an emotional accusation and ‘the exclusion of Antioch’ is a made-up complaint used solely for the purpose of complaining.

So Rome then believes, together with us, that the bishops of Antioch are equally successors to St. Peter, i.e., Antioch has just as much a right to be considered St. Peter’s See as Rome does? I do not think that this is what Rome believes, but I welcome correction…

I’m talking about the letters between St. Cyril and the Pope and from the Council to the Pope. You have not dealt with the substance of those letters, but define them as rote proceedings mirroring previous practices. Just “seeking his support” because other bishops did is making the whole thing a meaningless tradition. That’s what I cannot agree with. The letters had content to them; they were written for a higher purpose than the mere consensus you assign to them. The Pope told St. Cyril to take with him the authority of the papal See. That seems insignificant to you. I am arguing from specific facts and you’re arguing from generalities. Facts tend to make the case. Generalities are not admissible.

Well, seeing as how we’re not in a court of law, I don’t think sweeping statements like “generalities are not admissible” are going to cut it as a response to anything. What’s more, the letters ARE specific evidence. What we’re arguing is interpretations. That you think yours is obvious and correct is not surprising, but your insistence that I have not brought “details” is without merit, as you have rejected specific counterexamples to your beliefs as suddenly being outside the realm of this conversation.

First you say seeking the support of the pope wasn’t just a formality, then you imply it was irrelevant because 'he wasn’t the be-all and end-all of Church governance." thereby having it both ways.

I really wish you would stop confusing your assumptions of what I mean with my beliefs. Saying that Rome was not the be-all and end-all of Church governance is not the same at all as saying that his judgment is irrelevant. The Pope of Alexandria is not the be-all and end-all of Church government, either (Pope Yusab II, among others, could tell you that), but you’d have to be a fool to think that therefore his judgment is not authoritative. Placing an authority (such as a council) as above the determination of any one bishop does not make the bishop’s determination (to use a favorite word of yours) unimportant, or irrelevant, or whatever. It means that one man’s opinion is not to be set above all else in determining correct doctrine. The Church is not the Benedict show just like it’s not the Tawadros show or the Bartholomew show (or, for that matter, the Jeremy show, or the Ferde show). The Church is bigger than any of us, as the Holy Spirit that guides it is bigger than any of us.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Need to read what’s there on the other side. I can only place myself in that situation in Alexandria from my own perspective. I see the disobedience that’s a give, but “why”, Its not because of a theological disagreement. It out of fear of life. I’m not so convinced I would have been so quick to have traveled over there either.

There is no getting around misused authority when we start talking exile and death. I mean I couldn’t have created this horror in my own mind. Butchering a pagan philosopher on the Church steps? its just unreal.

 

[chimo]

Hmm. Did you read all of the quotes? Specifically post 518? Those were comments from folks in the east long before the 11th century schism. Those men were not speaking on what authority the Pope enjoys today.

 

[dcointin]

Here is an excellent read,

archeparchy.ca/documents/Taft%20Anamnesis%20not%20Amnesia.pdf

If you have a moment take the time to read the full writing. Its by Archimandrite Robert F. Taft, S.J. on the reflections on Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic relations. (It is PDF form)

myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/florovsky_ways_chap2.html

“The Unia began as a schism and remained a schism. In the apt phrase of the modern church historian Metropolitan Makarii (Bulgakov), “the Union in Lithuania, or rather in the West Russian lands, originated with an athema.” 107 The Unia was fundamentally a clerical movement, the work of a few bishops, separated and isolated from the community of the Church, who acted without its free and conciliar consent, without a consensus plebis, or as was lamented at the time, “secretly and stealthily, without the knowledge porazumenie) of the Christian people.” Thus it could not but split the Orthodox Church, sunder the community of faith, and estrange the hierarchy from the people.”

 

[Peter_J]

“The Unia was fundamentally a clerical movement, the work of a few bishops,”

Yes, which I think is the main reason there has been, in the past, such a large number of Eastern Catholics “going back” to Orthodoxy.

 

[Peter_J]

I guess we’re all just Protestants, then.

Maybe, but don’t speak for me.

 

[livingwordunity]

“Ignatius… to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”

—St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans, 1:1, A.D. 110

“It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times… But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. ***For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world***; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.”

—St. Irenaeus
Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1-2, c. AD 190

 

[BVMFatima]

“Ignatius… to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”

—St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans, 1:1, A.D. 110

“It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times… But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. ***For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world***; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.”

—St. Irenaeus
Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1-2, c. AD 190

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Oops. I think you’re right. I got confused as to which letter we were talking about. Apologies for my mistake. But I do think that they are both seeking consensus, yes, because I think that the early church model of governance (continued in the Orthodox Church) was conciliar, not with the Roman Pope having universal jurisdiction, which I view as an innovation.

"The holy synod said: "Since in addition to the rest the most impious Nestorius has neither been willing to obey our citation, nor to receive the most holy and god-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and, having apprehended from his letters and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily impelled thereto both by the canons [for his contumacy] and by the letter [to Cyril] of our most holy father and colleague Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears have arrived at the following grievous sentence against him…"

                                                      New Advent, Council of Ephesus

Somebody thought he had universal jurisdiction unless you can show me another name beside his in this Council document. “…by the canons…and by the letter…” Couldn’t be more clear.

How could both letters be seeking consensus when one was written to report to the Pope the results of the deliberations?? Again, you are responding with generalities vs. my facts.

Are these examples you’re giving ecumenical councils or local synods?

Doesn’t this handicap the Holy Spirit, then? If councils are guided by the same Holy Spirit (or guided to the same degree, or however you’d want to put it), but still need to “ratified” by the Roman Pope, then what does that say about the Holy Spirit? God needs to be ratified by the Pope in order to be binding or whatever?

You’d have a point if the Holy Spirit was present in visible form to act for Himself. The fact is, he was not, so a human factor had to substitute as vicar to ‘rubber stamp’ what the Holy Spirit revealed. That’s the way the Lord set it up and it’s unfortunate that you rebel.

I disagree with the part about ‘bad blood’ (at least in reference to the early councils agreed upon as ecumenical by what would become known as the OO, EO, and RC communions), but otherwise this seems spot on. I say that, however, with the knowledge that there were and are political aspects to all of our relations. It’s kind of impossible to escape the political dimensions of the councils when canonical territories were at stake (if you don’t think that who presided over what or who had whose support had political ramifications, you probably need to study the texts of the councils a little more closely).

You may be right, but I’m not aware there were any canonical territories ar stake at Ephesus so I’d like to keep focus here instead of wandering all over the conciliar map.

They didn’t have the Pope’s determination until after they’d already acted (with his legates representing him, sure), so I’m not sure how you mean that.

I mean it exactly as I stated it. In the citation above it’s clear the Pope’s determination, being the only one mentioned aside from the canons, was the deciding factor in the debate. He certainly had many bishops in agreement with him, but as I pointed out, his is the only name mentioned. That means something dispite the fact you reject it.

The Pope’s determination arrived a the Council with St. Cyril well before the matter was decided.

As for “determination”, I know that that means, thank you, and it fits very well with what the letter itself says about Rome’s process and role in things.

Do you mean your opinion fits well with the facts? It doesn’t, I’m afraid. The facts are diametrically opposed to your opinion.

No it isn’t. That’s a red herring.

It is not a red herring. If you deny a central, universal authority then you are allowing for multiple authorities. There’s no way around that. And if you’re advocating for multiple authorities, then you’re paving the way for multiple ‘truths,’ as we see in Protestantism.

Irrelevant baiting. The Orthodox are not Protestants, and rejection of Roman overreaching did not start with Luther in Europe. Would that it were that simple!

‘Protestant’ means protesting against the teachings of the Catholic Church. Do the math.

(continued below)

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Do you think that I, as a Coptic Orthodox person, spend any time thinking about such things? That’s silly. These are not very well-formed questions, and as far as I can tell, are pointless distractions from talking about the Orthodox Church supposedly “submitting” to the Roman Pope. Inter-EO relations are of no real interest to me, or relevance to this thread.

You make my point. Inter-EO relations and your separation from them are the result of no universal authority in Orthodoxy.
dzheremi;10231608:

I fail to see how listing a few of the things that Rome believes that other churches do not is “dumping all (my) prejudices” into anything. Isn’t it better to assume good faith/charitable interpretation of a post you might not agree with then assume that everyone is out to get you and slander your church?

Hard to do when you make slanderous remarks and use pejorative terminology. But it’s okay. We’re used to it.

 

[BVMFatima]

St.Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Who can argue against this?

 

[theistgal]

St.Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Who can argue against this?

I think the Orthodox position is not that St. Peter was not the first of the apostles, but that the keys were given to ALL the bishops through St. Peter, not just St. Peter’s personal successor.

 

[BVMFatima]

I think the Orthodox position is not that St. Peter was not the first of the apostles, but that the keys were given to ALL the bishops through St. Peter, not just St. Peter’s personal successor.

I understand that, but the Church was built upon Peter. If it was built on all the apostles, Jesus would of said so.

 

[BVMFatima]

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

 

[dzheremi]

You make my point. Inter-EO relations and your separation from them are the result of no universal authority in Orthodoxy.

Only in CAF wonderland am I proving your point. Heck, only here would anyone claim that modern inter-EO jurisdictional issues somehow prove the necessity of Roman ecclesiology for the every church or communion. A look into Roman history shows that the institution of the Papacy is not a guarantee that things won’t get messy. The Western Schism of the 14th-15th century, for instance, could not have been solved by “the Pope” (since there was more than one), and had to be solved by – surprise, surprise – a council.

Hard to do when you make slanderous remarks and use pejorative terminology. But it’s okay. We’re used to it.

Such things are in the eye of the beholder, so who’s ‘we’?

 

[BVMFatima]

Only in CAF wonderland am I proving your point. Heck, only here would anyone claim that modern inter-EO jurisdictional issues somehow prove the necessity of Roman ecclesiology for the every church or communion. A look into Roman history shows that the institution of the Papacy is not a guarantee that things won’t get messy. The Western Schism of the 14th-15th century, for instance, could not have been solved by “the Pope” (since there was more than one), and had to be solved by – surprise, surprise – a council.

Such things are in the eye of the beholder, so who’s ‘we’?

There may have been some problems in the West, but let’s not forget the Arianism of Alexandria please.

God Bless,
BVMFatima

 

[Mickey]

If it was built on all the apostles, Jesus would of said so.

St Paul did.

Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:
Eph:2:20