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.
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? Even in the face of insurmountable circumstances, great Fathers have arisen against all odds to combat various heresies, like St. Athanasius and St. Maximos. 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?
 
If the Pope did have universal authority over the Church, why was Pope St. Martin persecuted over what he taught? Why didn’t he just infallibly declare monothelitism as a heresy after the Council of Lateran and force the other bishops to accept it?
 
Why didn’t he just infallibly declare monothelitism as a heresy after the Council of Lateran and force the other bishops to accept it?
Click to expand...
Probably because he had yet to realize he was infallible :D.
 
This is a very complex question that cannot be answered with a forum post. I highly recommend you all read Warren Carroll’s The Building of Christendom. He wrote a series of 5 history books. This one is volume 2.
You have to know the facts in context.
 
ConstantineTG said:
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? Even in the face of insurmountable circumstances, great Fathers have arisen against all odds to combat various heresies, like St. Athanasius and St. Maximos. 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?
Click to expand...
This argument is misleading. By the time of the Great Schism, the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in communion with Constantinople and Rome, were fully hellenized and essentially under Constantinople’s sway as part of the “Byzantine” imperial Church. It seems quite logical that those of the Byzantine Rite who looked to Constantinople as their court of appeal in spiritual matters (I think that was determined at Second Constantinople) would think alike. That being said, the schism with Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem did not happen over night - there is evidence that as late as 1200 Antioch still considered itself in communion with Rome - but in time, for political and religious reasons, everyone followed Constantinople’s lead. The original patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch would have been the Copts and Syriac Christians (today’s Oriental Orthodox) who had left communion with both Rome and Constantinople centuries earlier…

Even your use of the phrase “4 of the 5 patriarchates” demonstrates what I am saying as the very construct of the so-called “pentarchy” was established by the Byzantine Empire (Emperor Justininian I believe) and was always a very Byzantine notion that meant little to the Latins on a practical basis.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The thread title is, “Did the Orthodox Churches ever submit to the Pope’s Authority?” 🤷
Click to expand...
I think it’s obvious that he means the churches in the east before the Great Schism in1054 AD. But the answer is that the Eastern churches as early as the first century looked to the bishop of Rome (what we now call the Pope) to settle disputes they had with each other in the East which they could not resolve without his help. The bishop of Rome is our sign of universal unity while the Eastern Orthodox are divided along lines of nationality and therefore could not be rightly called catholic (universal). And the bottom line is that the Catholic Church is the only one with the successor to Peter, the one whom Christ singled out from the 12 to lead the Church on earth.
 
I would highly recommend the following books:

Fr. Alexander Schmemann (Orthodox), The Historical Road of the Eastern Church
Fr. Francis Dvornik (Byz Catholic), Byzantium and the Roman Primacy
Fr. Yves Congar (Catholic), After Nine Hundred Years
Klaus Schatz (Catholic), Papal Primacy
Olivier Clement (Orthodox), You Are Peter
Fr. John Meyendorff (Orthodox), Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions
Meyendorff et al, The Primacy of Peter
Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck (Orthodox), His Broken Body
Karl F. Morrison (secular), Tradition and Authority in the Western Church, 300-1140
 
ConstantineTG said:
If the Pope did have universal authority over the Church, why was Pope St. Martin persecuted over what he taught? Why didn’t he just infallibly declare monothelitism as a heresy after the Council of Lateran and force the other bishops to accept it?
Click to expand...
As if the recent Popes are not persecuted for their current teachings. Just log in in twitter and Pooe Benedict is persecuted for teachings on contraception, abortion, homosexuality etc. I think even some of the priests or bishops disagree with his teachings. Heresies and rebelliousness has been part of the Church from a long time ago.
 
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?
Click to expand...
How do we receive Christ or the Holy Spirit? We receive him from the Church, from the Apostles and their successors. We cannot claim “Oh, I have the Holy Spirit so I can pretty much say what Christ has taught and I could exclude the teachings of the Pope and the Church.” That’s not gonna work, because Christ told us to listen to those he sent (and by extension, those sent by those he sent - their successors) Luke 10:16 “Whoever hears you hears me.” We grow in the Christian faith. Our consciences are formed by the truths revealed by God through the Church. Yes, God is with us, but that is through the Church, the “pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Tim 3:15. We cannot grow if we separate ourselves from the Church, like branches cut off from the vine.

In the “one body” of Christ, no man is an island.
 
twf said:
This argument is misleading. By the time of the Great Schism, the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in communion with Constantinople and Rome, were fully hellenized and essentially under Constantinople’s sway as part of the “Byzantine” imperial Church. It seems quite logical that those of the Byzantine Rite who looked to Constantinople as their court of appeal in spiritual matters (I think that was determined at Second Constantinople) would think alike. That being said, the schism with Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem did not happen over night - there is evidence that as late as 1200 Antioch still considered itself in communion with Rome - but in time, for political and religious reasons, everyone followed Constantinople’s lead. The original patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch would have been the Copts and Syriac Christians (today’s Oriental Orthodox) who had left communion with both Rome and Constantinople centuries earlier…
Click to expand...
Hellenization occured much earlier. By the time of the Sixth Ecumenical Council when the aforementioned events took place, Antioch and Alexandria have been Hellenized. But this didn’t stop St. Maximos the Confessor from approaching the Pope of Rome to help in his fight for orthodoxy.
twf said:
Even your use of the phrase “4 of the 5 patriarchates” demonstrates what I am saying as the very construct of the so-called “pentarchy” was established by the Byzantine Empire (Emperor Justininian I believe) and was always a very Byzantine notion that meant little to the Latins on a practical basis.
Click to expand...
Yet Rome who accepted all those Ecumenical Councils that defined the Pentarchy never rejected those definitions. Even those that “limited” her territories to those aforementioned in the First Ecumenical Council. If Rome really had rule over all, why didn’t she protest the First Ecumenical Council?
 
raikou said:
As if the recent Popes are not persecuted for their current teachings. Just log in in twitter and Pooe Benedict is persecuted for teachings on contraception, abortion, homosexuality etc. I think even some of the priests or bishops disagree with his teachings. Heresies and rebelliousness has been part of the Church from a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Please read the life of Pope St. Martin. He received much, much harsher persecution than a few nasty twitter posts and blog posts by sedevacantists and the SSPX. For one thing, he died in prison.
 
livingwordunity said:
The bishop of Rome is our sign of universal unity while the Eastern Orthodox are divided along lines of nationality and therefore could not be rightly called catholic (universal).
Click to expand...
That is wrong. The Holy Orthodox Church is united by is common Orthodox faith. I can (and have) worshipped and received Holy Communion in Greek, Russian, OCA, Antiochian, etc.
livingwordunity said:
And the bottom line is that the Catholic Church is the only one with the successor to Peter,
Click to expand...
We have St Peter also. In fact we have all the Apostles. St Peter was in Antioch first. 😃
 
twf said:
Even your use of the phrase “4 of the 5 patriarchates” demonstrates what I am saying as the very construct of the so-called “pentarchy” was established by the Byzantine Empire (Emperor Justininian I believe) and was always a very Byzantine notion that meant little to the Latins on a practical basis.
Click to expand...
Canon 5 of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree with the approval of the holy and ecumenical council, that after the Roman Church, which by the will of God holds over all others pre-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, that of Constantinople shall hold first place, that of Alexandria second, that of Antioch third, and that of Jerusalem fourth, the dignity proper to each to be observed;
 
Mickey said:
We have St Peter also. In fact we have all the Apostles. St Peter was in Antioch first. 😃
Click to expand...
Peter died in Rome as the Bishop of Rome. You have apostolic succession, but you don’t have Peter’s successor. However, if you would become an Eastern Catholic then you would have Peter’s successor and the Eastern liturgy that you enjoy. 🙂
 
Schism_hater said:
Canon 5 of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree with the approval of the holy and ecumenical council, that after the Roman Church, which by the will of God holds over all others pre-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, that of Constantinople shall hold first place, that of Alexandria second, that of Antioch third, and that of Jerusalem fourth, the dignity proper to each to be observed;
Click to expand...
Yes, Rome did eventually recognize the pentarchy, but it still developed in a Byzantine context and was originally instituted by Byzantine imperial authority.
My point was that it isn’t fair to say that 4 out of 5 patriarchs parted from the Latin Church and thus Rome must be wrong…since all 4 of those patriarchates were Hellenized/Byzantine churches under the sway of Imperial Constantinople. Arguably they were just as much under the sway of Constantinople as the various Western national primates were under the sway of Rome. The Western primates, who had far more autonomy in the Middle Ages than they do today, naturally sided with Rome, sharing a common Latin heritage, while the three Byzantine patriarchs naturally sided with Constantinople.

Constantine: The first ecumenical council simply states that Alexandria should have primacy in Africa. This doesn’t contradict the idea that Rome had universal primacy. The council doesn’t bother to spell out the nature of Rome’s primacy - it simply seems to be a given that wasn’t worth discussing. Pope St. Gregory strongly defended the primacy of Alexandria within Africa and of Antioch within Asia, while maintaining that Rome possessed a greater primacy throughout all the Churches. No one is suggesting that Rome exercised administrative authority over Alexandria or Antioch or any other patriachate - but she was the Church whose traditions all other churches must agree with due to her “superior” origins (see St. Iraneus).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top