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

  • Thread starter Thread starter GodHeals
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey said:
St Paul did. 😉

Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:
Eph:2:20
Click to expand...
I don’t see where this proves your argument correct. Jesus is head of the Roman Catholic Church, but the Pope is the earthly head untill Jesus returns again. Before I continue I would like to mention that the New Testament is hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament is fufilled in the New. In the Old Testament, Moses taught from his chair, Jesus fufilled that by establishing Peter, the new Earthly Head, on the New Chair. So the Pope is not just on the chair of Peter but also the Chair of Moses. Untill Jesus returns, the Pope will return the keys where Christ will open the kingdom for the Church 🙂

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

God Bless,
BVMFatima
Click to expand...
Arianism, which was defeated in the East by brilliant saints like, Ss. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa. In the West by contrast, Arianism lingered as a threat for several centuries longer than in the East.
 
BVMFatima said:
There may have been some problems in the West, but let’s not forget the Arianism of Alexandria please.

God Bless,
BVMFatima
Click to expand...
Do we refer to “the Docetism of Carthage” because of Donatus’ origin? Or “the Pelagianism of the British Isles” because of Pelagius’ origin? Nope. So “the Arianism of Alexandria” is a bit of a stretch, particularly since its underpinnings are arguably Origen’s fancies which were certainly not accepted by the Church in Alexandria any more than Donatism was accepted in Rome; in each case, the official leadership – Alexander and later Athanasius in Alexandria, and Militiades in Rome – condemned the heresy that arose in their midst.

Not to mention that none of this has anything to do with what we’re talking about here.
 
dzheremi said:
Do we refer to “the Docetism of Carthage” because of Donatus’ origin? Or “the Pelagianism of the British Isles” because of Pelagius’ origin? Nope. So “the Arianism of Alexandria” is a bit of a stretch, particularly since its underpinnings are arguably Origen’s fancies which were certainly not accepted by the Church in Alexandria any more than Donatism was accepted in Rome; in each case, the official leadership – Alexander and later Athanasius in Alexandria, and Militiades in Rome – condemned the heresy that arose in their midst.

Not to mention that none of this has anything to do with what we’re talking about here.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget, the “Novatianism of Rome.”
 
I was trying to avoid mentioning Rome in particular in light of Ferde’s objection that I “make slanderous remarks and use pejorative terminology”, but yes, there’s also that.
 
Mickey said:
I think it’s rather clear.🤷
and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Matt 28:20

Moses was a type of Christ.
:confused:
Click to expand...
  1. Is it clear only to your interpretation? How do yo know what that scripture is saying?
  2. The Catholic Church never denied this, for the Church is the body of Christ.
  3. Define " type of Christ "
  4. Are we not familiar with Matthew 16:18-19?
 
dzheremi said:
Do we refer to “the Docetism of Carthage” because of Donatus’ origin? Or “the Pelagianism of the British Isles” because of Pelagius’ origin? Nope. So “the Arianism of Alexandria” is a bit of a stretch, particularly since its underpinnings are arguably Origen’s fancies which were certainly not accepted by the Church in Alexandria any more than Donatism was accepted in Rome; in each case, the official leadership – Alexander and later Athanasius in Alexandria, and Militiades in Rome – condemned the heresy that arose in their midst.

Not to mention that none of this has anything to do with what we’re talking about here.
Click to expand...
My point was to mention that abuses do not only occur in Rome, I don’t see where the confusion is coming from?
 
Cavaradossi said:
Arianism, which was defeated in the East by brilliant saints like, Ss. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa. In the West by contrast, Arianism lingered as a threat for several centuries longer than in the East.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: In the interest of actual historical facts: as Bishop Tikhon (retired OCA DoW) likes to point out (see recent remarks at Monomakhos) Arianism in Byzantium was put to rest by Julian the Apostate, and certainly not by the Cappadocian fathers. The Byzantines also drove the Germanic tribes that they had converted to Arianism out to the West, where they gained the upper hand politically. It thus came later, by import, into the West, and was driven out later.
 
Opatatus:In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head – that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] – of all the Apostles, the one chair is which unity is maintained by all.* Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner…Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.**(Opatatus,*The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367 A.D.)
 
dzheremi said:
The Orthodox are not Protestants,
Click to expand...
Ferde_Rombola said:
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.

‘Protestant’ means protesting against the teachings of the Catholic Church. Do the math.
Click to expand...
Dzheremi is right, Orthodox are not protestants.
 
BVMFatima said:
I understand that, but the Church was built upon Peter. If it was built on all the apostles, Jesus would of said so.
Click to expand...
You must not be familiar with the Book of Revelation: “The wall of the [heavenly] city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were written the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Rev. 21: 14 (NAB).
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
Sure. First, those are not your words. You copied them from either the CCC or a Catholic website. Most Orthodox, like the ones participating in this thread, believe infallibility means the pope is a psuedo-nazi who wants to get them in a choke hold and strangle them.

You asked my understanding of the Rc doctrine of infallibility, and I gave it to. Of course the words came from the VI documents- that’s where the teaching originated! I reject out of hand your characterization of what “most Orthodox” believe about infallibility, and I especially reject it as applying to the posters in this thread. No Orthodox post in this thread came even close to calling the Pope a pseudo-Nazi (whatever that is). However, I do notice your posts growing in belligerence.

Second, the doctrine is directly from Scripture. See John 16:13.

John 16:13 says absolutely nothing about Peter, or the Papacy.

Third, my point is a couple of questions. What is the Orthodox problem with the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to the truth?

That is the worst kind of leading question. I reject the premise: the Orthodox have no problem with the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into the Truth. The whole debate is over hwo the Holy Spirit does so.

How does the Orthodox position that the popes are autocrats to whom you must submit, as several have charged in this very debate, square with the doctrine as recognized by you?

The teaching that all must submit to the pope goes back to the Roman declarations Dictatus Papae (c. 1150) and Unam Sanctam (1302), so they predate even the declaration of infallibility by a few centuries. The Orthodox have hardly made that up. If your point is that infallibility doesn’t necessarily entail the requirement of subjection, I could agreement with you although it might be implied. If there is an infallible authority, you could argue one has a moral duty to submit to it.
Click to expand...
 
Not to split hairs, but Protestants were not called by this epithet because they “protested” against the Catholic Church. They were given this title due to their refusal to accept the imperial ban promulgated at the Diet of Speyer (1529). To the Luthern delegates, this repudiation of the earlier Diet (also held in Speyer, in 1526) was a complete about face from the temporary reprieve that the first Diet had extended to the followers of Luther.

As for the Orthodox being Protestants, that is an unfair and inaccurate assessment. Although the Orthodox do not hold to all the tenets of the Catholic faith it does not merely necessitate lumping them together with those who reject much of what the Orthodox themselves hold dear. To label them Protestants is to make a gross mistake in your logic. Just because there is a sense of contention with the Catholic Church shared by the Orthodox and the Protestants alike does not make them one and the same.
 
branchofjesse said:
As for the Orthodox being Protestants, that is an unfair and inaccurate assessment. Although the Orthodox do not hold to all the tenets of the Catholic faith it does not merely necessitate lumping them together with those who reject much of what the Orthodox themselves hold dear. To label them Protestants is to make a gross mistake in your logic. Just because there is a sense of contention with the Catholic Church shared by the Orthodox and the Protestants alike does not make them one and the same.
Click to expand...
Please Consider the Invisible “Like” Button Clicked 😉
 
Protestant is not of issue, that’s being caught is the web of irrelevant comments, and there’s “many”. 😉

But St Peter tis the only one who received the Keys. That is a fact. 👍
 
branchofjesse said:
As for the Orthodox being Protestants, that is an unfair and inaccurate assessment. Although the Orthodox do not hold to all the tenets of the Catholic faith it does not merely necessitate lumping them together with those who reject much of what the Orthodox themselves hold dear. To label them Protestants is to make a gross mistake in your logic. Just because there is a sense of contention with the Catholic Church shared by the Orthodox and the Protestants alike does not make them one and the same.
Click to expand...
Please Consider the Invisible “Like” Button Clicked 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top