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.
Ferde_Rombola said:
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
Click to expand...
What is the point of this? The question on the thread is that if the Orthodox every submitted to the authority of the Pope. The answer is no. Anything you post here is the modern Catholic position that did not exist in the First Millennium. There is no contest to what the CCC teaches today to Catholics. To be in context of the discussion, you have to prove that what is taught today is what is taught in the First Millennium. Otherwise, it is besides the point.
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s not the case. There are four ancient churches that all possess apostolic succession: The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. In addition, there are others that are not ancient in origin, but still possess apostolic succession, such as the Polish National Catholic Church.
 
Jesus was himself God creator of all yet he humbled himself and was subject to his parents,

So how can the Supreme God be subject to mere humans who he created?

Didnt Jesus/God of all people have the right to be independant and not subject to anyone?

Yet He was humble and respected his Parents

He was subject to them out of Love and respect and humility

Did that mean Joseph and Mary ruled Jesus in a dictatorship way? no

Without Love ,respect and humilty the Churches will never get anywhere
 
Apotheoun said:
I mean that the Bishop of Rome holds primacy when all the bishops of the Church meet in an ecumenical council, or - to put it another way - that he holds the first rank among all the bishops. Of course it must always be borne in mind that primacy is not supremacy, and that the Bishop of Rome has only one vote in an ecumenical council, and that he cannot overrule the assembled bishops nor can he “lord it over them” as some kind of Gentile prince or sovereign.
Click to expand...
The last part goes without saying and I doubt anyone will disagree with it. The part about ‘cannot overrule the assembled bishops’ is a problem.

As I read his message to me, Cavaradossi appears to disagree with you. He says, and I agree, the primacy of Peter means he has appellate jurisdiction. Since every bishop has that authority in his diocese, I assume Cavaradossi means universal appellate jurisdiction. Assumptions like that, however, are very dangerous in this climate. If that’s not what he means, I invite his correction.

In any event, appellate jurisdiction means one vote, the last and decisive vote.

You’ve said the pope has primacy and said what it is not. What is it? How is it exercised in your opinion?
 
GaryTaylor said:
Apostles=Bishops=Priests/Sacraments= The Church. 😉

The Bishop of Rome speaks Universal for Christianity “de-facto” historically and in reality.
Click to expand...
Thats not my understanding of RCC teaching. There w.ere only 13 Apostles ( the 12 plus Paul) & then came Bishops( like Timothy & Titus ), then Priests, and lowest rank to the Deacons.
They aren’t of equal authority !
 
brb3 said:
Thats not my understanding of RCC teaching. There w.ere only 13 Apostles ( the 12 plus Paul) & then came Bishops( like Timothy & Titus ), then Priests, and lowest rank to the Deacons.
They aren’t of equal authority !
Click to expand...
Bishops are priests. There were no priests under the bishop in the first 3-4 centuries of the Church. St. John Chrysostom’s “On the Priesthood” was talking about the episcopacy. Those who we call priests today are presbyters. Their act of priesthood is an extension of the priesthood of the bishop, which in turn is the extension of the priesthood of Christ. Ultimately there is really only one priest in the Church, Jesus Christ.
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
So do I. Did he say ‘A true Church’ or ‘THE true Church.’ My recollection is the latter.
Click to expand...
His context is different from yours, so I don’t know how to answer. St. Ignatius says what makes a church a church.
 
brb3 said:
Where does that leave the priests …c/w the Apostles, knowing only they were granted to bind / loose ?
Click to expand...
Christ gave the apostles the authority to bind /loose (sins) …is there no limitation to what/whom they can have authority over (or transfer this power to) ?
 
Apotheoun said:
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.”
Click to expand...
St. Ignatius was, in addition to being the first of the Church Fathers to refer to ‘The Catholic Church,’ was the most vocal of his time in insisting on the authority of the bishop. He lived at a time when the Church was expanding rapidly, communication was difficult and uncertain and heresy was everywhere. The Saint wanted to be sure the people knew who they could turn to for orthodox doctrine. His words were never intended as comment on the papacy or the authority or lack thereof of the successor of Peter.
 
Mickey said:
The rock is St Peter’s confession of faith. 😉
That would be Christ.
Click to expand...
That was what I was told as a former protestant, but it made absolutely no sense to me then and it still doesn’t. Of course everything Jesus said to Simon, renamed Kepha, was based on his profession that Jesus was the Son of God. And, as the CC believes, Jesus is the Divine Cornerstone and Head of His church. However, Jesus specifically said to Simon: You are Rock and on this rock I will build my church and the powers of hell will not prevail.

Grammatically speaking, the second rock refers back to to the first rock; see thumbnail for verification.
 
RyanBlack said:
Actually, that’s not the case. There are four ancient churches that all possess apostolic succession: The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. In addition, there are others that are not ancient in origin, but still possess apostolic succession, such as the Polish National Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I guess we’re all just Protestants, then.
 
Mickey said:
They both say it.
Click to expand...
Scripture does not, but certain early Church leaders did. The two are not mutually exclusive. Without Simon’s confession to Jesus, as revealed to him by God, Jesus never would have said: You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church…🙂
 
Mickey said:
They both say it.
Click to expand...
That’s what Protestants say. “It” being your allegation that the rock means Peter’s profession of faith. “Both” being Scripture the the Church Fathers.

I ask them to show that to me in Scripture and in the writings of the Fathers. They are silent. So how about you post it. Book, chapter and verse, please.
 
joe370 said:
Scripture does not, but certain early Church leaders did.
Click to expand...
The holy fathers interpret Scripture for us. There was pretty much a consesus on this matter…although some Fathers said that the rock was Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top