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

[Hasire]

Patriarchs arre not in the Bible.

Yes there are! Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!

 

[Mickey]

Yes there are! Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!

 

[Stephanie_Pauls]

Yes there are! Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!

Ok Ill say it this way. The Patriarch of Constaninope is not in the bible.

 

[Schism_hater]

REALLY
Please share with us how?

Acts 15:

6] And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing***, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. [8] And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; [9] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. [10] Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? ***

[11] But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. [12] And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. [13] And after they had held their peace, **James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. [14] Simon [WHO IS PETER} hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. [15] And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written: **

God’s conrinued Blessings,

Pat/PJM

I said that St. Peter gave arguably the most influential speech at the Council, didn’t I? But he was just one of several speakers. You left off the rest, and crucial part of the passage. The entire assempbly, presided over by St. James, decides the issue.

Cherry-picking scripture is not a good thing.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I have always found it interesting that in the Orthodox churches that the buck stops at the Patriarch. Patriarchs arre not in the Bible. The Patriarch of Canstaninope dates back to Canstantine. The Pope dates back to the Gospell of Mathew. So how can one legitimise a Patriarch over the Pope is byond me.

There is a lot of stuff here that the Orthodox do not believe. Firstly, the “buck” does not stop at patriarchs, the buck stops at the Church which is indefectible. Secondly, the criticism that, “patriarchs are not found in the bible,” is really an invalid and irrelevant criticism, because we do not claim that patriarchs are anything but bishops with special prerogatives granted to them for church governance, by the church itself. Now the claim that the papacy dates to the gospel of Matthew is also rather hard to substantiate, as the Gospel of Matthew mentions not what the ecclesiological function of the bishop of Rome should be, nor does it mention either that Peter will have a successor, or whether his successor would have the modern day supremacy claimed by the bishop of Rome. In fact, on the primacy of Peter, the scriptures remain silent as to who, if anybody, would inherit this primacy, and what the nature of this inherited primacy would be. Furthermore, the nature of Peter’s primacy in the New Testament is arguably different from the Papacy’s primacy today. Lastly, the claim that we legitimize a patriarch above the papacy is untrue, because we claim for our patriarchs none of the prerogatives which your bishop of Rome claims to have, but rather we deny that he had such prerogatives in the first millennium at all.

 

[twf]

Emperor Saint Justinian for you.
It may be a Byzantine notion, but a notion validated by a Saint so it has as much weight as Pope St. Gregory’s notion of the three petrine sees or whatever notion exists.

Fair enough. I didn’t realize that he was venerated as a saint in the East. (Is he on the calendar of any Catholic church sui iuris?). My main point was that, at the time of the Great Schism, the other 3 Eastern patriarchs were thoroughly Byzantine and thus it was natural for them to follow Constantinople’s lead. That being said, if we are going by the good emperor’s authority…did he not also address the pope as “head of all the churches” and insist that he was eager that all Byzantine priests recognize his primacy in all spiritual matters?

 

[Apotheoun]

There is a lot of stuff here that the Orthodox do not believe. Firstly, the “buck” does not stop at patriarchs, the buck stops at the Church which is indefectible.

Excellent point. Western Catholics often mistake the Eastern Patriarchs for little popes, but the Eastern Churches have always functioned synodally, which is why they have never granted the kind of supremacy the Late Medieval West gave to the pope to the Patriarchs.

 

[twf]

That was my whole point. The Pope is teaching the truth, the Eastern Patriarchs were teaching heresy. Why didn’t the pope declare a dogma the 2 wills of Christ? Why didn’t he declare the Council of Lateran at Ecumenical? Why didn’t he tell the Patriarchs to get in line?

This is solid proof that infallibility and supremacy never existed in the First Millennium.

There are countless examples of the exercise of papal primacy that have been discussed to death on this board… but in regards to declaring dogma, even since the declaration of the dogma of papal infallibility at Vatican I (nearly 150 years ago), the popes have only exercised that authority twice to define dogmas… it is not the ordinary means by which the Church operates. The Church prefers, as Vatican II clarified, to work through the entire episcopate united under the leadership of the pope… hence the reinstitution of a regular synod of bishops held in Rome every few years. The popes did proclaim the truth and did ask heretical patriarchs to renounce their heresies, but all bishops have freewill. How many bishops in the last 50 years have preached or practiced tenants contrary to papal teaching? Even within the Latin Church, which is directly under Rome’s administrative authority, you rarely, rarely, rarely, rarely see the Pope “discipline” a bishop - this is a most extreme option and only used as a last resort. The Popes, at least in recent memory, treat even Latin bishops as brothers and respect their autonomy and God-given authority. The liturgy in Rome is a far cry from the liturgy in many Latin dioceses. Do Latin bishops recognize the pope as their head? Yes…but not as an absolute monarch…otherwise more would be following his lead…which they often don’t (nor are they expected to) on a wide range of issues.

 

[sharpag]

Do Latin bishops recognize the pope as their head? Yes…but not as an absolute monarch…otherwise more would be following his lead…which they often don’t (nor are they expected to) on a wide range of issues.

But the Pope is an absolute monarch. If one grants that he has the charism of infallibility then it is merely an issue of the Pope not exercising the absolute power that he has; not an issue of him not having it.

Unfortunately, papal infallibility is probably the issue that will prevent a Catholic-Orthodox reunion and considering how infrequently it is used one cannot help but wonder if either side thinks it was worth it.

 

[dvdjs]

If the Great Schism was about jealousy and renegading against the supreme rule of the Pope that has been there from day 1, why did 4 of the 5 Patriarchates schism from Rome? Why did not one bishop who was not under the Patriarchate of Rome, stand up to this heresy?
…
Why did no one arise from the East to tell the Patriarch of Constantinople that they were wrong? It has happened countless times before. Why did the Patriarch of Antioch also sever ties? And while Alexandria and Jerusalem were diminishing in influence and numbers at this time because of the Islamic conquests, why did they side with Constantinople and not with Rome? Is it such a grand conspiracy where most of the bishops conspired against the Pope of Rome?

What are the facts?

The other three Patriarchates did not sever communion with anyone in response to the the excommunications of 1054 between Rome and Constantinople. They did not “schism from Rome”.

The situation became more complicated during the Crusades. After the Latins had defeated the Muslims in the Holy Land, the predominantly Latin clergy filled a vacancy with a Latin in the Jerusalem Patriarchate. They also created a vacancy, arguably uncanonically (but probably no more uncanonically than the recent workings in the OCA) in Antioch, and filled it with a Latin. The response in Constantinople was to establish parallel Patriarchs appointed by the EP, resident in Constantinople. These actions certainly go beyond the canonical power of the EP. Economy or an unconscionable abuse - mileage varies? After the Latins were driven out, these EO Patriarchs alone exercised of power in the sees, but there was no joint declaration against Rome until after the Turks had conquered Constantinople, killed or exiled the hierarchs united with Rome, selected a monk of their choosing to be made Bishop, then appointed him Patriarch and ruler of the entire Rum Millet, including the nominal Patriarchates that were under the EP.

If you are looking for Orthodox who though the schism wrong and sought to reconcile with Rome, you can point to those working to end it it during these centuries, including the Metropolitan of Kiev. You might consider the Kievan Bishops who undertook the Union of Brest, and the Antiochian Orthodox in the Middle East who elected a Patriarch to reunite with Rome in the 18th century.

And integrating over history. what is the net result?

Alexandria, since Chalcedon, has been and remains overwhelmingly Oriental, not Eastern Orthodox. The *Greek Orthodox Patriarchate *there was created for the Greeks in Egypt; any claim to its being the Apostolic See is far more specious that a claim of the Latins to the Patriarch of Jerusalem during the crusades, or the Melkites to the Apostolic See of Antioch. Moreover, the number of Oriental Catholics in this territory is about the same as the number of Eastern Orthodox there. In the Holy Land, Eastern Christianity is predominantly Catholic. Only the daughters of Constantinople are predominantly, and in fact overwhelmingly, EO. Overall, the simple idea that the Patriarchs and the Patriarchates have sided with Constantinople over Rome is not consistent with the facts of history.

 

[dvdjs]

… the Eastern Churches have always functioned synodally,

Except when they haven’t.

 

[Stephanie_Pauls]

Everytime the apostles are all together Peter speaks for them.
Peter had an imediate successor, Linus. If Peter wasnt supposed to have a successor Linus would have never been pope.

 

[GodHeals]

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

Please read the OP’s second sentence:

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.

Hi ALL,

Sorry for the confusion. I was really wondering from a Catholic perspective the Orthodox and Catholic view on the need for and against a Pope… so I thought it would be best to put in this forum. Regardless, I would like to hear from the Orthodox Brothers and Sisters in Christ as well… Perhaps, I would be able to get a more balanced understanding.

I still need to read through all of the posts. Thank you all again!

May the Peace of Christ reign in your hearts,
Brian

 

[GodHeals]

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.

Hi,

Please see the post above this post… I do value your opinion. I would like to know why you are becoming OCA. The Body of Christ needs healing!

God Bless You!
Brian

 

[Cavaradossi]

The other three Patriarchates did not sever communion with anyone in response to the the excommunications of 1054 between Rome and Constantinople. They did not “schism from Rome”.

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.

The situation became more complicated during the Crusades. After the Latins had defeated the Muslims in the Holy Land, the predominantly Latin clergy filled a vacancy with a Latin in the Jerusalem Patriarchate.

They did so uncanonically, as well.

They also created a vacancy, arguably uncanonically (but probably no more uncanonically than the recent workings in the OCA) in Antioch, and filled it with a Latin.

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.

The response in Constantinople was to establish parallel Patriarchs appointed by the EP, resident in Constantinople.

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.

These actions certainly go beyond the canonical power of the EP. Economy or an unconscionable abuse - mileage varies? After the Latins were driven out, these EO Patriarchs alone exercised of power in the sees, but there was no joint declaration against Rome until after the Turks had conquered Constantinople, killed or exiled the hierarchs united with Rome, selected a monk of their choosing to be made Bishop, then appointed him Patriarch and ruler of the entire Rum Millet, including the nominal Patriarchates that were under the EP.

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.

If you are looking for Orthodox who though the schism wrong and sought to reconcile with Rome, you can point to those working to end it it during these centuries, including the Metropolitan of Kiev. You might consider the Kievan Bishops who undertook the Union of Brest, and the Antiochian Orthodox in the Middle East who elected a Patriarch to reunite with Rome in the 18th century.

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.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Alexandria, since Chalcedon, has been and remains overwhelmingly Oriental, not Eastern Orthodox. The *Greek Orthodox Patriarchate *there was created for the Greeks in Egypt; any claim to its being the Apostolic See is far more specious that a claim of the Latins to the Patriarch of Jerusalem during the crusades, or the Melkites to the Apostolic See of Antioch.

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.

Moreover, the number of Oriental Catholics in this territory is about the same as the number of Eastern Orthodox there. In the Holy Land, Eastern Christianity is predominantly Catholic.

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. Even if the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria had a only a flock of one Greek person by the time of the East-West schism, he was, by virtue of his orthodox Chalcedonian faith, and the mutual recognition of both parties, Rome and Constantinople (which were both Chalcedonian), the legitimate bishop of Alexandria.

Only the daughters of Constantinople are predominantly, and in fact overwhelmingly, EO. Overall, the simple idea that the Patriarchs and the Patriarchates have sided with Constantinople over Rome is not consistent with the facts of history.

And the idea thad they didn’t is not consistent either with good ecclesiology or faithfulness to the authority of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

 

[guanophore]

 Then why even make a claim that the schism is political?  Political is about jealousy and strategies to gain power.  The only one that gained power after the Great Schism is Rome

Because it did have political aspects, economic, geographic, cultural and linguistic. Politics is not limited to jealousy and power. When the empire relocated to Constantinople, there was no structure left to hold the city of Rome together. The Emperor prevailed upon the Bishop of Rome to take over the civic government, and the conflation of secular and ecclesiastical authority was sealed. We can see in the Reformation a thousand years later the ugly consequences of this situation.

Monothelitism.

You are saying the Bishop of Rome committed this heresy?

 It is only you guys who seem to have resentment against me because of my decision.  You are interpreting everything I say as a form of bitterness and anger.  Search my posts for the last year, nothing has changed in what I am saying.  The only difference between last week and today is I openly said I am becoming Orthodox.  Then suddenly I am bitter and angry?  Talk about objectivity.

I don’t think everything you say is bitter and angry. I find some of your comments accusatory, as if you are trying to justify your decision.

I have been reading your posts for the last year.

Your spiritual journey is your own, and the consequences of your decisions between you and your maker. You don’t need to justify them here in your posts.

About the Papacy.  Why did not one bishop from the East say that the Pope is rightfully the supreme ruler of the Church is this is indeed the faith of the Church from day one?

First of all, such a perspective reflects the fleshly thinking of secularism, and is contrary to the Teaching of Jesus.

Secondly, there were vast distances of geography and language. Even appeals to Rome from other regions took sometimes the better part of a year to arrive. People sometimes undersestimate how difficult it was to have a council, or even consult with another bishop.

 They can't all be lackeys of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Why make inflammatory comments like this?

No one has suggested any such thing. I find it uncharitable.

Even at times when the Eastern Patriarchates were lock in step with one another in heresy, someone from the East calls them out. The truth always triumphs. Yet in this instance, no one has challenged the Eastern hierarchs regarding their stance against Rome.

Are you suggesting we wait for a prophet, a St. Nicholas or St. Athanasius to come forth and slap someone across the face or call them out in front of an ecumenical council?

Do you object to Pope Benedict having dialogue with Patriarch Bartholomew on reconciliation?

If communion with the bishop of Rome is such a dogmatic necessity, why did no one defend it?

I think you have a lot of reading yet to do, my contentious brother in Christ. Plenty has been said, and written.

I posed it as a question, I did not say there was a conspiracy. Since you are defensive, maybe you believe there is.

I believe you are making unnecessarily inflammatory comments. I speculated that it is to justify your decision, but maybe there is another reason. I don’t find it conducive to useful dialogue.

Your posts are funny because it always has to be about me.  I guess this is the classic case in this forum when one cannot debunk the truths posted by someone, they just character assassinate that person.  How about let us discuss the topic at hand and not each other?

You have not given anything of substance to “debunk”. In this post you have made baseless and apparently uneducated assertions that no statements, writings, or dialogue have occurred with regard to the necessity for the Church to maintain communiion with the See of Peter.

 

[guanophore]

That was my whole point. The Pope is teaching the truth, the Eastern Patriarchs were teaching heresy. Why didn’t the pope declare a dogma the 2 wills of Christ? Why didn’t he declare the Council of Lateran at Ecumenical? Why didn’t he tell the Patriarchs to get in line?

This is solid proof that infallibility and supremacy never existed in the First Millennium.

The fact that recipients fail to exercise the gifts God gives them does not negate the gifts.

Rom 11:29
29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

And using a council to solve these problems rather than an ex-cathedra statement does not make the gifts invalid either.

  Why didn't he declare the Council of Lateran at Ecumenical?

I am sorry I cannot fathom what you are asking here.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Everytime the apostles are all together Peter speaks for them.

I would appreciate it if my words were not taken out of context like that. What I wrote was: In fact, on the primacy of Peter, the scriptures remain silent as to who, if anybody, would inherit this primacy, and what the nature of this inherited primacy would be.
Indeed, I did not argue that the Scriptures do not show some sort of primacy for Peter, only that they never detail who would succeed him, and in what way his successor would exercise his primacy.

Peter had an imediate successor, Linus. If Peter wasnt supposed to have a successor Linus would have never been pope.

That is simply begging the question. In trying to prove that Peter had a direct successor who inherited the privileges enjoyed by the modern-day papacy (something not mentioned in the scriptures, and indeed prerogatives not even given to Peter in the scriptures), it has already been assumed in this argument that the bishop of Rome is such a successor.

 

[guanophore]

Ok Ill say it this way. The Patriarch of Constaninope is not in the bible.

Requiring that any ecclesiastical practice be found in Scripture is a dangerous road to take. It is a method used by Protestants to discredit Catholic Sacred Tradition.

The Church had not reached as far as constantinople when the NT was written, but that does not invalidate the Patriarchy there. There is no record of Peter coming to Rome in the Bible either!

The Patriarchy at Constantinople is fashioned after that of Peter in Rome, and the Patriarchy of James in Jerusalem.

The line of Bishops coming from Peter in Antioch of Syria is actually older than the one in Rome.