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

[joe370]

Same here. But it is usually futile to start throwing quotes at eachother.

I would love to read them, and I am not being sarcastic. It won’t be futile…I will add them to my list. Please share? Thanks.

 

[Mickey]

For me what knocked me off my socks was the Eucharistic understanding of the Church, which cannot be reconciled with a pope-centric ecclesiology.

There were many things when studying holy Orthodoxy that knocked my socks off. When one hears the truth…one must follow.

 

[Mickey]

I would love to read them, and I am not being sarcastic. I will add them to my list. Please share?

If you would like to start a separate thread…I would try to participate. I am approaching a period where I will be pressed for time.

 

[brb3]

If Christ wished to be understood as the Rock, he would of Preached that first Pentecostal Sermon, and Baptized those 3000, before he left TerraFirma.
Nope, he gave the Keys to Simon the FISHERMAN… & let him cast deep the Church’s net !

Wow …you Easterners have lost it !!
Even we, former Protestants turned Catholic, can see that Truth in Scripture .

 

[joe370]

If you would like to start a separate thread…I would try to participate. I am approaching a period where I will be pressed for time.

That’s cool. No need to start a thread because I would like to add them to my personal list. I have no problem believing that Jesus’ church is built on rock as well as being based on Simon’s profession/confession.

 

[joe370]

If Christ wished to be understood as the Rock, he would of Preached that first Pentecostal Sermon, and Baptized those 3000, before he left TerraFirma.
Nope, he gave the Keys to Simon the FISHERMAN… & let him cast deep the Church’s net !

Wow …you Easterners have lost it !!
Even we, former Protestants turned Catholic, can see that Truth in Scripture .

We are all brothers and sisters in Christ so ease up a little…

 

[ConstantineTG]

If Christ wished to be understood as the Rock, he would of Preached that first Pentecostal Sermon, and Baptized those 3000, before he left TerraFirma.
Nope, he gave the Keys to Simon the FISHERMAN… & let him cast deep the Church’s net !

Wow …you Easterners have lost it !!
Even we, former Protestants turned Catholic, can see that Truth in Scripture .

Peter preached what the crowd gathered there needed to hear. Not what Christians on the internet 2000 years later would be debating about. You argument holds no water, sorry. We can’t expect the Apostles or the Fathers of the Church to address a non-issue at their time. For the same reason you could have said, “well, Peter should have said at Pentecost that Jesus Christ has two natures in one person, has two wills, and that iconoclasm is evil. Also that he is the eternal Son of the Father, eternally begotten and not made. And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, not from the Father and the Son.”

Do you expect all that?

 

[Mickey]

If Christ wished to be understood as the Rock, he would of Preached that first Pentecostal Sermon,

Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Wow …you Easterners have lost it !!

Easy with the ad hominems. There is no need for insults here.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

They got it right.
In Scripture it is stated in Matthrw 16:18.

“You are Peter (Cephas) and upon this rock (Cephas) I will build my Church.” No fudging ‘Cephas.’ It has only one meaning in Aramaic. As to the verse, it’s one continuous sentence. I don’t see anything about profession of faith there. Where is it? He says, “AND upon this rock…” IF He had said, ‘BUT upon this rock…’ you might have an argument. As it is, you don’t. Protestants get some things right, but this certainly isn’t one of them

For the holy fathers, they are too numerous to post. However, we are a bit off topic now. You may want to start another thread on the subject.

I don’t think we’re off topic at all. We’re still discussing the authority of Peter.

We can post some of the Fathers, which I intend to do tomorrow. I’ll be consentrating on the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

 

[twf]

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

Of course the Pope is the Vicar of Christ who exercises the Petrine primacy throughout the Church Universal - I’ve said as much more than once in this thread… but the Church also clearly and explictly teaches, as seen in the Catechism quotes I included in my earlier posts, that each bishop is also truly a vicar of Christ. Let’s not create false divisions between us and the Orthodox. The Catholic faith is richer and more nuanced than many people think - both within and without the Church. It is a faith of mysteries - and often the answer is both not either / or.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.” (emphasis added)

And as I said earlier:
*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. *

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Cornerstone for sure, but in another place he calls Christ the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) and the Apostles pillars (Gal. 2:9). I guess it depends whether he got the building materials from Home Depot or Lowe’s.

 

[ConstantineTG]

“You are Peter (Cephas) and upon this rock (Cephas) I will build my Church.” No fudging ‘Cephas.’ It has only one meaning in Aramaic. As to the verse, it’s one continuous sentence. I don’t see anything about profession of faith there. Where is it? He says, “AND upon this rock…” IF He had said, ‘BUT upon this rock…’ you might have an argument. As it is, you don’t. Protestants get some things right, but this certainly isn’t one of them

I don’t think we’re off topic at all. We’re still discussing the authority of Peter.

We can post some of the Fathers, which I intend to do tomorrow. I’ll be consentrating on the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

You quoted Mickey’s post with my name on them. Not that there is anything wrong with Mickey’s post but why are people here so fond of putting words into my mouth

 

[joe370]

Twf - Of course the Pope is the Vicar of Christ who exercises the Petrine primacy throughout the Church Universal - I’ve said as much more than once in this thread… but the Church also clearly and explictly teaches, as seen in the Catechism quotes I included in my earlier posts, that each bishop is also truly a vicar of Christ. Let’s not create false divisions between us and the Orthodox. The Catholic faith is richer and more nuanced than many people think - both within and without the Church. It is a faith of mysteries - and often the answer is both not either / or

.

And as I said earlier:
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.

 

[Cavaradossi]

If Christ wished to be understood as the Rock, he would of Preached that first Pentecostal Sermon, and Baptized those 3000, before he left TerraFirma.
Nope, he gave the Keys to Simon the FISHERMAN… & let him cast deep the Church’s net !

Wow …you Easterners have lost it !!
Even we, former Protestants turned Catholic, can see that Truth in Scripture .

I am not even sure what this argument is directed against. We don’t deny Peter a primacy among the apostles, we simply deny the claim that one must necessarily conclude from this fact the truth of the modern day papacy. And all on the grounds of this simple point of disagreement, we in this thread have been told we are haters of the papacy, fallaciously compared to Protestants, dragged into irrelevant and rather acerbic arguments about whether our Church is the true Church (that is not the topic of this thread), and now we have our sanity called into question. It seems to me that we have our heads screwed on relatively straight here, to be honest.

 

[twf]

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.

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.

Each diocese or eparchy under a validly ordained bishop is a particular Church. This is what the catechism says. Many of these particular churches (over 2000 of them in fact - dioceses, eparchies, and equivalent) are in full communion with the successor of St. Peter in Rome and constitute the visible Catholic Church. The eparchies of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches are also true particular churches, though they are unfortunately only in an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church as they lack full communion with the source of visible union - the Pope of Rome. By virtue of their bishops and eucharistic sacrifices, however, the Catholic Church - that is, the body of Christ - does exist within these bodies in a mystical fashion. I fully agree that other bodies - such as the Episcopalians, to use your earlier example, do not constitute true Churches. My primary point was that we should not create false divisions between us and the Orthodox by denying the authentic authority and importance of each and every bishop. There is not a fundamental difference between the bishops as vicars of Christ and the Pope as the Vicar of Christ - it is simply a difference of degree or scope of jurisdiction. The papacy is not some previously unknown fourth degree of holy orders…each and every bishop possesses the fulness of the high priesthood of Christ Jesus…for as St. Ignatius says where the bishop appears…there is the Catholic Church. The Pope exercises a universal primacy to ensure unity between the particular local Churches - but ontologically he is a bishop, not something else. To say otherwise contradicts the Fathers and the constant tradition of both East and West. If we are to speak of a fundamental difference between the pope as Vicar of Christ and the bishops as vicars of Christ, we are creating stumbling blocks for our Eastern brethren where there need be none. While the Pope’s role is unique, it is not fundamentally distinct from or separate from his brothers the bishop, who, with the Pope, when gathered in an ecumenical council, constitute the supreme authority of the Church.

 

[twf]

From St. Peter himself:

1 Peter 2:4-10
*4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”**

7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”[c]

8 and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”[d]

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.***

If Peter is an individual and unique rock, why did Peter himself said this? The only unique rock/stone is Jesus Christ the corner stone. And we are the building blocks that build up the Church.

Jesus is the Rock. The confession of Peter is the Rock. Peter is the Rock. Since when did we (and by we I mean almost everyone in this thread) become Fundamentalist Protestants who can only derive one simple meaning from a verse of Sacred Scripture? Often the Scriptures, being an expression of the deep and rich mysteries of our faith, have multiple layers of meaning! Just as the Psalms can refer both to David and Our Lord, so can the Rock refer to both Christ, who is ultimately and truly the Rock (or Cornerstone) and also to Peter, who shares in Christ’s role as Rock. St. Ignatius tells us to look upon the bishop as if looking upon the Lord Himself - if the bishop is an icon of Christ the High Priest…why can’t St. Peter (and his successors) be icons of Christ the Rock? I don’t understand why it is mutually exclusive.

Fellow Catholics - the Church has never taught that only St. Peter is the Rock…of course Christ is also the Rock. Our Orthodox brothers are correct that many Fathers identified the Rock as Christ or St. Peter’s confession. Orthodox brothers - my Catholic brothers are correct that other Fathers identified the Rock as St. Peter. The Faith is rich and full of mysteries - it isn’t always either / or!

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

You quoted Mickey’s post with my name on them. Not that there is anything wrong with Mickey’s post but why are people here so fond of putting words into my mouth

I noticed that after I posted it, went back and read a message from you that appeared to back him up, but now I can’t find it. I pasted your name in from the message itself, so it has to be somewhere. In any event, since I can’t find it, I apologize to you.

The points I made still stand. Nowhere in Mt. 16:18 is there even the slightest hint the Lord is talking about Peter’s confession of faith or anything else except He will build His Church on Peter…

 

[brb3]

Peter preached what the crowd gathered there needed to hear. Not what Christians on the internet 2000 years later would be debating about. You argument holds no water, sorry. We can’t expect the Apostles or the Fathers of the Church to address a non-issue at their time. For the same reason you could have said, “well, Peter should have said at Pentecost that Jesus Christ has two natures in one person, has two wills, and that iconoclasm is evil. Also that he is the eternal Son of the Father, eternally begotten and not made. And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, not from the Father and the Son.”

Do you expect all that?

U make strong case for why the Church needs ONE to make the tough calls & settle disputes. Any effective government has either a King, PrimeMinister, Pres, or Dictator.
Having a number of Patriarchs, or Leaders like the Protestants do …is never gonna work.

Even the Indians knew u need ONE Chief !! Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians …a ticket to disaster.

 

[Mickey]

Having a number of Patriarchs, or Leaders like the Protestants do …is never gonna work.

There have always been a number of bishops…it has always worked.

 

[Schism_hater]

U make strong case for why the Church needs ONE to make the tough calls & settle disputes. Any effective government has either a King, PrimeMinister, Pres, or Dictator.
Having a number of Patriarchs, or Leaders like the Protestants do …is never gonna work.

Even the Indians knew u need ONE Chief !! Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians …a ticket to disaster.

The Church is not to be modeled on earthly organizations. Chrsit explicitly said authority in the Church is different than worldly authority. We cannot place in one man (or “office”) that which is ultimately the task of the Holy Spirit.