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

[guanophore]

 Depends what you mean by this.  Certainly they did not submit to the administrative rule of the Pope, but whenever a Pope teaches orthodoxy, like Pope Leo the Great, then they submit to the Pope's teaching.  But it had to do more with the orthodoxy of the Pope's teaching, rather than the Pope being the Pope.

The successor of Peter has ever been the visible sign of unity in the Church founded by Christ. Prior to the Schism, that unity existed in East and West. This is one of the reasons that the Eastern Christians appealed to the Bishop of Rome for assistance with the invasion of the Muslims.

Why do we need a Pope?

This sounds like the clay, saying to the Potter “why hast thou made me thus”? Who are we, to demand to know “why” God decides to organize His Church in a certain way?

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?

Jesus decided we did, that is why. He appointed Peter and the other Apostles to provide that visible sign of unity to the world. He gave them authority over His Church.

There is no evidence in that.  How do you think St. Thomas would communicate with St. Peter all the way from India in the First Century?

On the contrary, we believe that the HS infallibly protected the the Apostles and their successors, so that their teaching would be in complete unity, everywhere in the world. We are part of a communion of saints, and Jesus sent the HS to remind the Apostles of all that He had taugtht them, so that they would be in unity.

There have been a number of Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) who have come into union with Rome, for a varied number of reasons.

The HS always draws the faithful into unity with Himself, and therefore, with one another.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Constantine, I think you have fallen into a perspective that is characterized by secular thinking and fleshly motives. Jesus spoke against this line of thinking.

Matt 20:25-28
25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; 28 even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

No one here has claimed that the Schism occurred over “jealousy” of any kind. You seem to be introducing this mindset to justify your own decision to leave the Latin Church.

The successor of Peter in Rome is to be the servant of the servants of God, not lord any “supremacy” or authority over them in the worldly sense.

 Why did not one bishop who was not under the Patriarchate of Rome, stand up to this heresy?

What “heresy”?

Have you decided that you are now finished posting on this forum? If your resentment is so strong that you are throwing around accusations such as this one, perhaps the member above is correct, and it is time to find yourself a new forum?

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?

About what?

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?

There is no conspiracy, Constantine, except in your mind. The Bishops each followed their own consciences.

It is not of Christ to have “sides”. Jesus wants unity in His Church.

1 Cor 1:10-14

10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chlo’e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

We have an apostolic commandment to agree, have no dissentions, and to be of the same mind and judgement. It seems that you do not wish to submit yourself to this Apostolic command, but instead, are looking for opportunities, such as this thread, to sow dissention and division among the flock. It is a very poor witness.

 

[guanophore]

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

When Christ established His Church, there was not a quibble about authority nor any striving among the Apostles about “submission”. This is a fleshly response that crept into the church through the sins of man.

If so, why don’t they currently believe in the need of a Pope, a Vicar of Christ?

Each of the sui juris Orthodox churches have a Patriarch or “pope” who is also a valid successor to an Apostle, just as the Bishop in Rome is. They do see a need for all the successors of the Apostles to be in unity. From the Orthodox point of view, the Bishop of Rom separated himself from his brother Bishops.

Did the Apostles that went separate ways always converge on the teachings with Peter as the Head of the Church throughout their years evangelizing all men throughout different areas in the region?

All the Apostles taught the same Gospel committed to them by Jesus.

I am still questioning the Catholic Church based on the need for a Pope when there were five councils: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.

These are not “councils” but Holy Sees, or “chairs” occupied by successors of the Apostles. It is not for us to question or defy the manner in which Jesus formed His Church. He appointed Peter, and gave him special gifts and responsibilities that He gave to no one else. It is not proper for anyone to separate from Peter. Though all the Apostles travelled throughout the world they all remained in unity with Peter in teaching and in doctrine.

I don’t know much about the history of the Church and why Rome would have the Pope as the Head, especially when the Orthodox say Rome broke away, and Catholics say the Orthodox broke away.

Rome became the primacy of orthodoxy and doctrine because both Peter and Paul labored there to build up the Church before they were martyred.

Both sides were at fault in the regrettable events that resulted in the schism.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Because the HS infallibly protects the Church from falling into error. A pope who believes or teaches error is prevented from “forcing” any heresy upon the Church.

 

[Rence]

The OP asked, “If so, why don’t they currently believe in the need of a Pope, a Vicar of Christ?”

Do Eastern Catholics currently do not believe in a need for a Pope? They do. It is clear as day the question of the OP is about the Orthodox Church.

It’s pretty clear to me as well Sorry you are being treated so rudely. You, of course, have every right to be here as anyone else, otherwise this would have restricted access.

Yes, it is a common mistake here. Either they don’t know the rules of the EC forum or that they believe that ECs can answer the question better

It’s pretty common for people to confuse the Orthodox Church and the Eastern Church.

 

[Schism_hater]

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).

1. You are undountably right that there were “spheres of influence”, so to speak, at work. There unfortunately was a large cultural and political divide between East and West and leaders on both sides sinfully let that develop into a divide in the church. I somewhat agree that it is unfair simply to pit 4 eastern patriarchs versus 1 western. It is simply an accident of history, geography, etc. that there was one patriarch for the Christian west, versus 4 for the Christian East. Nevertheless, the other Eatern patriarchs didn’t just blindly follow Contantinople. There is a great statement by the Patriarch of Antioch, Peter somebody, about his desire to restore untiy with Rome, which I will try to locate.
2. Sorry, I must respectfully disagree with your point to Constantine. “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges…” The use of “since” and “the like” (or their Greek equivalents of course) indicates that an equivalency between the Patriarchate of Alexandria and that of Rome is being made. Rome is being made a model on which to base Alexandria’s authority over neighboring provinces.

 

[PJM]

=GodHeals;10190939]Hi,

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

Absolutely and historically provable: YES!

I am still questioning the Catholic Church based on the need for a Pope when there were five councils: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. I don’t know much about the history of the Church and why Rome would have the Pope as the Head, especially when the Orthodox say Rome broke away, and Catholics say the Orthodox broke away.

Hi Brian, allow me to add some perspective.

One can prove both historically: catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

AND Biblically: Each of the following was Jesus speaking to and mandating ONLY His Apostles form whom Succession is made absolutely necessary in order to fulfill Mt. 28:19-20

Use this site for easy look up of these passages in the sequence provided. THEY indisputably PROVE the Primacy. Then I’ll explain WHY it is absolutely necessary.

http://www.drbo.org/

Mt. 10:1-8 [notice God has already begun the transfuse of HIS Powers and authority to the Apostles]

Mt. 16:15-19 Singular Tense spoken by our PERFECT God. “I” God “thee” Peter, “church” and “key’s to heaven”

Mt. 18:18 extended to ALL of the Apostles ONLY

Mt. 28:19-20 Succession is essential to "teach what “I” taught “you” to the “Entire WORLD”

Jn.14:16-17 promises to send the HS to “THEM”
Jn.20:21-22 FULFILLS this promise to THEM alone
Jn.17:15-19 Jesus GIVES HISELF as the warranty of the Churches teaching ONLY truth on all Faith and Moral issues.

God Transfuses His Actual and REAL Powers and authority to the Apostles ALONE and through them to the Pope and Magisterium.

Mt. 10: 1-2
Mt. 16: 18-19
Mt. 20: 21-23
Jn.17: 18

Now as for the NEED for the Primacy:
The Need is determined by God Himself by and through His Perfect Will. Take note that the decision of a “pope/Single leader” follows the Tradition of the OT. GOD DOES NOT CHANGE. Mal. 3:6 “For I am the Lord, and I change not”. God consistently choose only one man; empowered, guided and protected by God. Abram. Noah, Moses, Jacob, David, Samuel, the Prophets and Judges, John the Baptist; Jesus Himself and then Peter. SAME Tradition. WHY?

Because One can make decisions; with NO question about who IS IN charge or who to follow. More than one leads to arguments, debates and indecision. It was, is and shall continue to be God’s choice of Governance.

Mt. 16: 19 is a PRECISE AND SPECIFC COMMAND OF FREE-GOVERNANCE OF “
Thee Church .

The terms “Bind and Loose” chosen by our Perfect God ARE and where understood to be by ALL of those who heard them, to be granting unlimited and unrestricted Governance of this New Church to Peter alone. These terms were legally binding and in common use by the Kings of walled cities who choose a “Prime Minister” [Peters Role] to handle completely and freely the day to day Governance of the walled city [church] and answered ONLY and directly to the king alone. Jerusalem was such a city. With Real gates; Real key’s and Local Governance.

God Bless
Pat/PJM

 

[Hasire]

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.

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.

 

[Schism_hater]

The successor of Peter has ever been the visible sign of unity in the Church founded by Christ. Prior to the Schism, that unity existed in East and West. This is one of the reasons that the Eastern Christians appealed to the Bishop of Rome for assistance with the invasion of the Muslims.
.

Well, as to the latter, don’t discount political survival as a motivation also.

I think you’ve idealized the first millenium somewhat (as do many Orthodox also). I don’t get that the East consistently regarded the agreement with Rome as essential to Church unity. They certainly regarded it as deisrable, as most Orthodox do now, I think. I certainly see it as desirable. You can find certain moments, such as the Formula of Hormisdas, where the eastern patriarchs formally signed on to a pretty strong statement of papal primacy which regarded the Pope as an essential symbol of unity, but I don’t think that was a consistent attitude in the East.

The Eastern attitude, as I see it, is that true untiy exists when there is a substantive untiy in the essentials of the faith. Do we have that now? If all the Eastern patriarchs suddenly declared unity with Rome, would there be true unity? I don’t think so, because we are not completely unified in the substance of the Faith (altho I think we are closer than many Orthodox will allow). The bishop of Rome may indeed be a visible symbol of unity, but the symbol can’t take precedence over the reality, can it? I guess what I’m saying is that a formal union without true unity of faith would not be enough. That being said, I will not consider the Church to be whole until all the ancient patriachates are reunited.

 

[Schism_hater]

Now as for the NEED for the Primacy:
The Need is determined by God Himself by and through His Perfect Will. Take note that the decision of a “pope/Single leader” follows the Tradition of the OT. GOD DOES NOT CHANGE. Mal. 3:6 “For I am the Lord, and I change not”. God consistently choose only one man; empowered, guided and protected by God. Abram. Noah, Moses, Jacob, David, Samuel, the Prophets and Judges, John the Baptist; Jesus Himself and then Peter. SAME Tradition. WHY?
Because One can make decisions; with NO question about who IS IN charge or who to follow. More than one leads to arguments, debates and indecision. It was, is and shall continue to be God’s choice of Governance.

Well, you must not think the early Church did things right at the Council of Jerusalem then (Acts 15) then. Peter was one of several speakers, although arguably the most influential, the Apostles discussed it among themselves, St. James bishop of Jerusalem said “I decide”, and the decision was issued in the name of all the apostles, bishops and presbyters.

 

[AnthonyJ]

We Catholics don’t venerate him, therefore we don’t refer to him as such. We don’t demand that you refer to Catholic saints only recognized by the Catholic Church, but not the Orthodox, as saints.

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.

 

[PJM]

=Schism hater;10195023]Well, you must not think the early Church did things right at the Council of Jerusalem then (Acts 15) then. Peter was one of several speakers, although arguably the most influential, the Apostles discussed it among themselves, St. James bishop of Jerusalem said “I decide”, and the decision was issued in the name of all the apostles, bishops and presbyters.

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**

 

[hazcompat]

Constantinople has been called new Rome since Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire there in 330 AD.

Council of Constantinople 381

Canon 3

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

Peace

 

[Mickey]

James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. [14] Simon 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:[16] After these things I will return, and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will set it up: [17] That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things. [18] To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. [19[/COLOR] ]For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. [20] But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

 

[livingwordunity]

Rome became the primacy of orthodoxy and doctrine because both Peter and Paul labored there to build up the Church before they were martyred.

Yep.

The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome.” - Acts 23:11

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, I think you have fallen into a perspective that is characterized by secular thinking and fleshly motives. Jesus spoke against this line of thinking.

Matt 20:25-28
25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; 28 even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

No one here has claimed that the Schism occurred over “jealousy” of any kind. You seem to be introducing this mindset to justify your own decision to leave the Latin Church.

The successor of Peter in Rome is to be the servant of the servants of God, not lord any “supremacy” or authority over them in the worldly sense.

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

What “heresy”?

Monothelitism.

Have you decided that you are now finished posting on this forum? If your resentment is so strong that you are throwing around accusations such as this one, perhaps the member above is correct, and it is time to find yourself a new forum?

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.

About what?

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? They can’t all be lackeys of the Ecumenical Patriarch. 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. If communion with the bishop of Rome is such a dogmatic necessity, why did no one defend it?

There is no conspiracy, Constantine, except in your mind. The Bishops each followed their own consciences.

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

It is not of Christ to have “sides”. Jesus wants unity in His Church.

Definitely.

1 Cor 1:10-14

10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chlo’e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

We have an apostolic commandment to agree, have no dissentions, and to be of the same mind and judgement. It seems that you do not wish to submit yourself to this Apostolic command, but instead, are looking for opportunities, such as this thread, to sow dissention and division among the flock. It is a very poor witness.

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?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because the HS infallibly protects the Church from falling into error. A pope who believes or teaches error is prevented from “forcing” any heresy upon the Church.

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.

 

[Hasire]

We Catholics don’t venerate him, therefore we don’t refer to him as such. We don’t demand that you refer to Catholic saints only recognized by the Catholic Church, but not the Orthodox, as saints.

He’s a Byzantine Catholic Saint, and while Byzantine, Catholic nonetheless. So his notion has validity.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=197609&page=5

 

[andrewstx]

ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=1598&tla=en

“New Rome”?

peace

Constantinople took the name second Rome upon the fall of the Roman Empire.

When Constantinople fell to the Muslims Russia became the third Rome.

 

[Stephanie_Pauls]

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.