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

[Mickey]

Clearly, the misguided idea that Unity/Communion of the One Church isn’t of issue. I find that a rather disturbing concept in light of Scripture, the Councils, and the Early Church Fathers/Saints.

What say you?

I believe I already answered that question. From my perspective, the Holy Orthodox Church, (through their common faith), has this unity/communion…we do not need to submit to one supreme/infallible bishop who resides in Rome. That is how the faith has always been received.

We submit to Christ.

 

[joe370]

The thread is about submission to the Pope. The Orthodox Church is united by their common Orthodox faith. We have Patriarchs, bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, readers, and laypersons.

What is your point?

Not just the Bishop of Rome, as far as Catholics are concerned, as taught by the CC. As per the CC, all Catholics, in terms of dogmas being promulgated, must defer to an Ecumenical Council that is ratified by the Bishop of Rome. It’s never the Bishop of Rome in complete isolation!

 

[joe370]

dzheremi -
Indeed, because there is no compromise on truth. We don’t really expect there to be anything to compromise on regarding issues on which the only alternative to proclaiming the truth as we have received it from our fathers is to proclaim something else received from someone else. I hope this isn’t scandalous to read, as I assume a committed Roman Catholic would say essentially the same to us (I’d be worried if they didn’t, honestly).

Exactly my point brother!

 

[GaryTaylor]

the Holy Orthodox Church, has this unity/communion

This foreign concept does exist, very good

Moving “forward” now…

Infallible is a new concept?

“The doctrine of the [infallibility of ecumenical councils] states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as ‘Canons’ and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching. The doctrine does not claim that every aspect of every ecumenical council is infallible.” [Wiki-Pedia] I know bad sight, pretty sure others will agree though.

What Pope? Which Pope are they speaking of? I do realize we have a few in Christianity.

 

[Mickey]

must defer to an Ecumenical Council that is ratified by the Bishop of Rome

There are only seven of those.

 

[Apotheoun]

The Unity of the Church
A. The church finds its unifying principle in the covenant promise “my dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people” (Ezek. 37:27, Lev. 26:12). This finds fulfillment in Jesus as Emmanuel (“God with us,” Matt. 1:23, Jn. 1:14), who came as the mediator of the covenant of grace to redeem and purchase this people for his dwelling by his blood. The ultimate consummation of the promise is the new Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 21:3).

B. The church must recognize, appreciate, and confess this fundamental unity of the covenant people of God, the body of Christ; which is a God-given creation and not a human achievement.

C. The church, the visible organization, is described in the Bible as one church. God has given only one covenant of love (Deut. 7:6-12) and has only one people of the covenant.

D. In the New Testament this teaching of the unity of the people of God is sustained (see Eph. 2:11-22 and 4:1-16). Yet the situation is different. No longer are the people of God circumscribed by ethnic, political, or geographical boundaries. All nations are to be discipled.

E. This unity includes those people of God in past ages and also looks to the future and includes the people of God who will believe on his name (Jn. 17:20-21).

E. The Lord governs his church also through the application of his Word to the people by the Spirit as the Word is expounded and applied by the officers of the church (Eph. 4:11-16).

F. The gospel proclaimed by the apostles as the foundation of the church resulted in establishing churches as covenant communities in various locations, churches which were ruled by elders. These churches and these elders were not independent, but were one body united by Christ their head, by the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit, and by the covenant promise of God. The elders at Antioch and Jerusalem resolve a problem, under God, and their decision is binding on the churches (Acts 15, 16:4).

G. The unity of the church is attained unto by growing in spiritual maturity (Eph. 4:13). Unity and maturity are the result of mutual, loving admonition and joint submission to Scripture. Such maturity is manifested by speaking and acting the truth in love (Eph. 4:15).

H. Each member is essential to the body, and the growth of the body depends on the active participation of each part (Eph. 4:13, 16). The work of the officers of the church is to prepare the members for, and assist them in this work (Eph. 4:11-12).
(.opc)

Course this is according to the Orthodox sight above, may not be “official” since no unity exists, and who seem to suggest here Unity/Communion is some strange idea of Rome.

Point of clarification: the OPC (i.e., the Orthodox Presbyterian Church) is a Protestant denomination, which is in no way affiliated with Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Point of clarification: the OPC (i.e., the Orthodox Presbyterian Church) is a Protestant denomination, which is in no way affiliated with Eastern Orthodoxy.

I agree, seems they do agree on this idea of Unity, just as Mickey does, yet both seem to apply this to their own paradigm?

 

[Pons]

Some people are still here?

 

[Mickey]

Infallible is a new concept?

No. The doctrine, as it exists today for the RCC, was championed and promulgated in 1870 by Pope Pius IX.

But I am not going to debate the doctrine of papal infallibility at this time…done that too many times.

 

[GaryTaylor]

clarification

btw our conversation some time ago on Essence/Energy while not clearly understand by me then was an inspiration to read further. I sincerely like the thinking, and Thanks for patience.

Peace

 

[Apotheoun]

As I understand it, Orthodox ecclesiology affirms the idea that each local Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in its entirety, and that the unity of the one Church cannot be lost when a specific local Church falls into schism or heresy, because that local instantiation of the Church ceases - by its schism or heresy - to be the Church in any meaningful sense.

To put it another way, the unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which exists only in each of the properly ordered local Churches, cannot be lost by the schism or heresy of a particular Church or group of Churches. One can say that the schismatical or heretical groups have fallen away from unity, but the unity of the Catholic and Apostolic Church remains in all those local Churches that continue to profess the Orthodox faith and celebrate the Holy Mysteries.

 

[joe370]

dzheremi

I don’t think this is true, at least not entirely (we don’t disagree with the need for authority, only the form that RCs insist it take). In many, many cases we have plenty of existent writings from the Fathers and various canons from the Councils that give us a very reliable and authoritative source on what the early Church believed. It’s not really an academic exercise to look up what a particular synod had to say about jurisdiction or to note the response of the Eastern bishops to Roman overreaching. That’s just knowing your own history.

Agree to a point. You and I view history through different lenses, incorporating our own subjective take on the matter, and in the process, history is seen differently which was why I said, “At best, and by itself, such a method can only yield opinions about what various groups of Christians did in fact believe so long ago.”

Ignatius of Antioch, reminds us via his writings, that believers can avoid heresy and schism by remaining obedient to the bishop of a particular church; this, as per Ignatius was the way in which one could avoid false teachers and schisms, meaning that each respective bishop of a particular church, did in fact (as we both agree) possess the authority from the Apostles, in order to protect the faithful from erroneous teachings. To me it just makes sense that this concept would take place on the ultimate scale, in terms of the church universal. In my humble opinion, it would make very little sense if a bishop was in fact needed for the unity of any one particular church, but not necessary on the larger scale. e,g, the church universal. For me personally to attempt to deny that there was, and continues to be, an uniquely authoritative bishop serving as the principle of unity of the universal church of Jesus the Christ, would entirely undermine Ignatius’s repeated arguments that the unity and order of the particular Church depends upon loyalty and obedience to the bishop of that particular church, or diocese. Again, that’s just my view; I could be wrong…

What’s needed is a living authority speaking for Jesus and ultimately, this continues to be an on-going issue between Catholicism and Orthodoxy…

 

[GaryTaylor]

But I am not going to debate the doctrine of papal infallibility at this time…done that too many times.

Oh I know, there’s many new members who need “practice”.

 

[Mickey]

As I understand it, Orthodox ecclesiology affirms the idea that each local Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in its entirety, and that the unity of the one Church cannot be lost when a specific local Church falls into schism or heresy, because that local instantiation of the Church ceases - by its schism or heresy - to be the Church in any meaningful sense.

To put it another way, the unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which exists only in each of the properly ordered local Churches, cannot be lost by the schism or heresy of a particular Church or group of Churches. One can say that the schismatical or heretical groups have fallen away from unity, but the unity of the Catholic and Apostolic Church remains in all those local Churches that continue to profess the Orthodox faith and celebrate the Holy Mysteries.

Thank you. That is how I understand it.

 

[Apotheoun]

btw our conversation some time ago on Essence/Energy while not clearly understand by me then was an inspiration to read further. I sincerely like the thinking, and Thanks for patience.

Peace

I am glad that you enjoyed the conversation, because I did as well. God bless.

 

[Mickey]

Oh I know, there’s many new members who need “practice”.

Huh?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am glad that you enjoyed the conversation, because I did as well. God bless.

Peace

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

No, but if we are to take Rome’s claim to have a primacy grounded in scripture seriously, then I would expect to see some statement that Peter would have one sole and direct successor at any time, that this privilege would be granted exclusively to the bishops in the city of Peter’s martyrdom, that this successor would have supreme jurisdiction over all bishops, and that this successor would be protected from error when making dogmatic declarations matters of faith and morals.

When Protestants make that complaint to me my response is, to suppose the Lord built a Church for the First Century only is illogical. The Lord built a Church for all time (Mt. 28:20); what was begun in the First Century is intended to continue for all time. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” That is, to do the things He did, including to choose men to preach the Gospel as He chose them and to give those men the same authority He gave them. Which they did.

This is why I find it annoying when people make the baseless accusation that we do not recognize the primacy of Peter in the New Testament, because we clearly do not reject it as it is presented in the New Testament, but we reject the way Roman Catholics attempts to read its 19th century papal dogmas into it.

I responded to that. John 16:13 indicates doctrine will not come as an instant revelation, but will develop over time (“guide you to all truth.”). The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years. Do you really believe the Lord would allow the Church He built to fall into heresy? Catholics make lots of mistakes and Satan and his minions target the Church more than anyone else. The Church has seen many rough spots over the centuries, but she perseveres and survives. When the time comes to clarify doctrine, she defines it dogmatically by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We don’t allege our popes are saints on earth. From all reports, they go to confession more than we do. We do insist they are the Lord’s vicar on earth, His prime minister, His keeper of the keys. What he opens shall not be shut, what he shuts shall not be opened. (That’s in Isaiah somewhere.)

As long as we’re airing out our annoyances, I’ve already aired one of mine, people like you saying they accept the primacy of Peter, but denying it in the exercise. I asked you what it meant to you. If you answered, I didn’t see it. What do you mean when you say you ‘recognize’ the primacy of Peter? What does it entail?

Ah, so then the pope is a separate order of apostolic succession stemming from Peter, while bishop comes from the other apostles.

That’s right. Peter is clearly different from the rest; he has different charisms and different responsibilities. You know that. Why do you keep harping against it?

But if this were true, why is the pope ordained by bishops, and why is it that a bishop who is elected as pope is not ordained once more to confer upon him the papacy?

Do you understand ‘ordination?’ Popes are elected to an office, not ordained. Priests and bishops are ordained to a sacred ministry. It’s not the same thing.
Cavaradossi;10199918:

Furthermore, should not a pope be ordained only by those who have succession directly from Peter, so as to maintain this Petrine lineage?

Is this a serious question? If so, the answer is ‘no.’ Popes aren’t ordained as pope. See above. The Petrine lineage obtains to the office, the man who sits in the Chair of Peter under the Holy Spirit, not to men independent of the office.

But this creates a problem, since there cannot be two popes at once to preserve this unique succession when one steps down, but there only can be one primate. In fact, since custom is not for a retiring bishop (much less one who dies in office) to ordain his successor, it stands that by the time of pope Anacletus, the second bishop to obtain the episcopate in Rome, this succession would have been lost since pope Anacletus died as a martyr and therefore likely did not ordain Clement.

The first six popes were martyred. The only ‘problem’ I see are the ones you’re inventing in your zeal to denigrate the papacy. Your presumptions are misguided. All of them.

And even if we were to grant that it survived until the time of John Paul II, we know that such a succession would be lost now, since Pope Benedict XVI was not ordained pope by Pope John Paul II. So then it must be that the pope has the same Holy Orders as all of the successors of the Apostles, bishop, which then makes this point moot, because either all bishops possess the power of primacy by virtue of their ordination, or none do.

This is nothing but the compounding of your error(s). God’s blessings on you.

 

[joe370]

Ferde Rombola;10201681]When Protestants make that complaint to me my response is, to suppose the Lord built a Church for the First Century only is illogical. The Lord built a Church for all time (Mt. 28:20); what was begun in the First Century is intended to continue for all time. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” That is, to do the things He did, including to choose men to preach the Gospel as He chose them and to give those men the same authority He gave them. Which they did.

Even in the face of schism? I totally agree!!! People leaving Jesus’ church to start their own, for whatever reason will never negate or undermine Jesus’ church built on Kepha; after all it’s God’s Church. If it could then what would be the point, in terms of church affiliation, outside of God’s church? Replacing God’s church in favor of a man-made church, seems to lead to a spiritual cul de sac.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Does anyone think there is an important distinction to be made between the “worldwide church” which is the entire body of christ currently present on earth and the “universal Church” which is the eschatological body of christ consisting of all the faithful in the past, present and future times?

Good question. Since all are the Body of Christ, the answer is ‘no.’ There are no different parts to Christ. He is Lord of all.