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

[joe370]

Amen.

Agreed.

 

[Apotheoun]

:yup: There was just the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I agree, there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but it does not exist over and above the local Churches, instead it exists only in and through them. In other words, the Church is not something abstract, but is instead concrete, for it exists only where there is a local Church that professes the Orthodox faith, while simultaneously celebrating the Holy Mysteries under the guidance of a bishop in succession from the Apostles.

 

[joe370]

I agree, there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but it does not exist over and above the local Churches, instead it exists only in and through them. In other words, the Church is not something abstract, but is instead concrete, for it exists only where there is a local Church that professes the Orthodox faith, while simultaneously celebrating the Holy Mysteries under the guidance of a bishop in succession from the Apostles.

Church universal does not exist over and above the particular churches; instead it exists only in and through them…Agree with everything you have said. .

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The bishops in general are the successors of all the Apostles - including St. Peter - and so wherever there is a true bishop there is a true Church.

“A” true Church?? Is that a quote from a recognized authority? Episcopalians believe their ‘bishops’ are true bishops and their’s is “A” true Church. Do you agree with them?

It looks like everyone is misinterpreting St. Ambrose’s statement. I think he’s referring to the seat of ecclesiastic authority, not a particular see.

 

[twf]

“A” true Church?? Is that a quote from a recognized authority? Episcopalians believe their ‘bishops’ are true bishops and their’s is “A” true Church. Do you agree with them?

It looks like everyone is misinterpreting St. Ambrose’s statement. I think he’s referring to the seat of ecclesiastic authority, not a particular see.

Any body of the baptized under a validly ordained bishop in apostolic succession is indeed a true Church - for all bishops, as I pointed out earlier (and you denied) are vicars of Christ the head as the Catechism teaches:

1560 As Christ’s vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches: “Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church.”

Note that in the following paragraph, the Catechism explains that the Church exists both in and also from each particular (local) Church under each bishop:

833 The phrase “particular Church,” which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession. These particular Churches “are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists.”

In another thread I said:

This is how I see it - just as Christ is said to be truly and fully present in each and every crumb of the Eucharistic Host, so is the Christ fully present in each and every body of the faithful under a bishop. The entire host is Christ: each crumb is Christ. The entire Church around the world is the Church: each diocese/eparchy is the Church. The Church is the mystical extension of the Incarnation - and as Christ is omnipresent, I do not think it a stretch to imagine that both the Church Universal and each local Church can be said to be His body. The Pope is Christ the Head, but so is each local bishop in a very real sense. Yet there is one body, not many, and one head, not many. It is a great mystery - as are so many teachings of our faith.

 

[Apotheoun]

“A” true Church?? Is that a quote from a recognized authority?

Yeah, since I count St. Ignatios of Antioch to be an authority.

 

[Apotheoun]

It looks like everyone is misinterpreting St. Ambrose’s statement. I think he’s referring to the seat of ecclesiastic authority, not a particular see.

You have a right to your opinion.

 

[twf]

Yeah, since I count St. Ignatios of Antioch to be an authority.

Exactly so - Where the bishop is…there is the Catholic Church. I believe the authors of the Catechism, as I quoted above, had just this in mind.

 

[Apotheoun]

Episcopalians believe their ‘bishops’ are true bishops and their’s is “A” true Church. Do you agree with them?

Why would I want to agree with the Episcopalians?

Instead, I agree with St. Ignatios of Antioch who said:

“Surely, Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, for His part is the mind of the Father, just as the bishops, though appointed throughout the vast, wide earth, represent for their part the mind of Jesus Christ.”

“Plainly, then, one should look upon the bishop as upon the Lord Himself.”

“You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid.”

“Likewise, let all respect the deacons as representing Jesus Christ, the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as God’s high council and as the Apostolic college. Apart from these, no church deserves the name.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

That’s a good start. Assuming you accept what it entailed in the past, you acknowledge the pope decides disputed questions. You are not far from the kingdom. Where does that authority come from?

The Church and the Episcopacy.

From Christ and the verses we’ve been discussing; the keys, binding and loosing, which is not the same as that conferred on the others, feed my sheep, strengthen your brothers, etc. These words mean something, Cav. You know they’re there in Scripture, but you seem unwilling to give them the weight they carry.

No, I simply interpret them as the fathers did. All bishops possess the primacy of Peter, and by virtue of this, these passages apply to all bishops. For not one function mentioned in the Petrine texts in the Church was originally confined to the bishop of Rome: not the power of the keys to bind and loose, not the power to forgive sins, not the power to anathematize, and not Christ’s commission to Peter for him to fed His sheep.

And, BTW it is by virtue of the episcopacy of the Bishop of Rome.

So then it is a power of the entire Episcopacy.

Lol. You keep asking the same question. I’ve said the pope’s authority derives from the office of the Chair of Peter (ex cathedra) by succession and his powers are conferred on him by the Lord as recorded in Scripture. I don’t know what else to say.

I continue asking because it continues to be left unanswered. The Dominical Texts don’t confer authority to Peter and his one lineage of successors in Rome, they refer to Peter, so this is already a stretch. That all other powers are passed on by the laying on of hands, while this one alone, according to your claim, is passed on by Christ to whomever happens to be appointed as the bishop of Rome, with no sacrament or laying on of hands involved at all, only makes this claim more suspect.

I explained this. The office does not require ordination apart from ordination as bishop. Popes are elected, not ordained. What about that don’t you understand?

I understand just fine, contrary to your rude claims to be able to read my mind, but this distinction between the office (which is apparently empowered directly by Christ) and the general episcopacy is one that is found neither in the Scriptures nor in the Early Fathers. On what basis is this distinction drawn?

Apostolic succession applies to the office of bishop and that’s what the pope is – the Bishop of Rome.

Yes, so either all bishops possess the power of primacy, or none of them do.

The authority of the pope is not subject to your edicts. Your setting down the requirements for the apostolic succession of the Bishop of Rome to the papacy is not detailed in Scripture either. You just seem to want things to be the way you want them to be.

Pure fallacious ad hominem argumentation.

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Ambrose of Milan, Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

Where Peter is, there is the Church. That’s all you need to know.

Yes, because all bishops are Peter, and where the bishop is the Church is. Thus St. Ambrose simply restates St. Ignatius’ witness to this Catholic principle of faith in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans: “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

And that is precisely your misguided presumption. You have decreed the office of pope must be confirmed by the laying on of hands. Where is that in Scripture?

What order is not given by the laying on of hands either by the Scriptures or by the Tradition? The porter, the exorcist, the lector, the sub-deacon, the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopate, tradition holds that all of these were given by the laying on of hands. The Scriptures detail that the Spirit and its charisms must be given by the laying on of hands (a practice which continues to this very day as Confirmation/Chrismation). The normative way for these powers (all of which we would say are connected to the work of the Holy Spirit) to be transmitted is by the laying on of hands. Whence then is it obtained that the charism granted to the papacy is an exception, which follows not the norm?

You sure have me fooled. I’d hate to see what a hater of the papacy looks like if you’re not him. If you reject the Gregorian Reforms, you reject the papacy.

Leave this appeal to pathos somewhere else. If one wants to see true haters of the papacy, he can go to CARM, which would disabuse anybody of the false notion that I am a hater of the papacy. I reject certain developments which occurred in the papacy, because they are foreign to the catholic faith of the first millennium. If the papacy were to return to its first millennium position, sans infallibility, universal jurisdiction, and immunity to judgment, I would have no problem with Rome returning to its former primatial status.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Popes authority it seems is being overestimated. While I believe its commendable to think of the Holy Father in such a way. I also think that the bigger picture is missed as to the early councils and what really was the Popes authority. Yes he has the divinely given first chair of honor, and Constantinople does have the second.

I thought we all agreed already that when the Apostolic Succession and the Eucharist has been continued to have been given since “antiquity” then when one falls off a theological point of issue, that Eucharist is certainly still valid. The Mysteries remain the same for us.

 

[brb3]

The bishops in general are the successors of all the Apostles - including St. Peter - and so wherever there is a true bishop there is a true Church.

Where does that leave the priests …c/w the Apostles, knowing only they were granted to bind / loose ?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Apostles=Bishops=Priests/Sacraments= The Church.

The Bishop of Rome speaks Universal for Christianity “de-facto” historically and in reality.

 

[joe370]

Oh brother.

Hey Mickey, I said:

There was just the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Prior to the east - west schim, St. Maximus the Confessor, circa AD 650, and St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in AD 638 believed that Jesus’ church was called the Catholic Church:

"Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope’s) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church. (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation …the new heresy. (Sophronius, [quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council]
, Mansi, 893)

"If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is,** he anathematizes the Catholic Church**. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also,** if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God** …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

 

[Mickey]

Hey Mickey, I said: Prior to the east - west schim, St. Maximus the Confessor, circa AD 650, and St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in AD 638 believed that Jesus’ church was called the Catholic Church:

The word “catholic” means universal. The word “orthodox” means true-believing/teaching. Today, as in the first 2000 years…the Holy Orthodox Church considers Herself to be catholic (universal) and orthodox (true believing/teaching).

What is your point?

 

[joe370]

The word “catholic” means universal. The word “orthodox” means true-believing/teaching. Today, as in the first 2000 years…the Holy Orthodox Church considers Herself to be catholic (universal) and orthodox (true believing/teaching).

What is your point?

I was just wondering why I don’t see the word catholic when I go to Eastern Orthodox sites i.e. Eastern orthodox Catholic Church?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Any body of the baptized under a validly ordained bishop in apostolic succession is indeed a true Church - for all bishops, as I pointed out earlier (and you denied) are vicars of Christ the head as the Catechism teaches:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I agree, there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but it does not exist over and above the local Churches, instead it exists only in and through them. In other words, the Church is not something abstract, but is instead concrete, for it exists only where there is a local Church that professes the Orthodox faith, while simultaneously celebrating the Holy Mysteries under the guidance of a bishop in succession from the Apostles.

That professes the orthodox faith.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Any body of the baptized under a validly ordained bishop in apostolic succession is indeed a true Church - for all bishops, as I pointed out earlier (and you denied) are vicars of Christ the head as the Catechism teaches:

Regarding the first phrase above, ending with “a true Church,” there are two such Churches in the Christian community – the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The rest are not Churches.

In another thread I said:

You said all bishops are vicars of Christ. There is a fundamental difference between ‘vicars of Christ’ and ‘The Vicar of Christ.’ See CCC 882 posted above.

 

[ConstantineTG]

“A” true Church?? Is that a quote from a recognized authority? Episcopalians believe their ‘bishops’ are true bishops and their’s is “A” true Church. Do you agree with them?

It looks like everyone is misinterpreting St. Ambrose’s statement. I think he’s referring to the seat of ecclesiastic authority, not a particular see.

Yes, that is a quote from a recognized authority. That authority is St. Ignatius of Antioch.