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

[joe370]

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!

Nice post. I was attempting to convey the same thing.

 

[joe370]

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.

You do place it in one man; what I mean is the one bishop (or office) of each and every autocephalous church. Just as you believe that the the ultimate authority is the HS, so does the CC. The CC and the EOCs are not that different in terms of church structure.

 

[joe370]

Mickey;10208113]Correct. And of course you cannot separate St Peter from his confession of faith. But it is that very confession of faith that is the rock on which the Church is built. And Christ is the Spiritual Rock (1 Corinthians) and the Cornerstone (Ephesians).

The Fathers believed both - right? His confession was posited just as the man Simon renamed Rock, was posited. They were never used in a mutually exclusive way. :thumbsup:Surely we agree on this point?

It baffles me sometime when Catholics take offense about this. For some reason, I think Catholics think that this passage (cherry picked out of Matthew) is the proof certain for the supremacy of the Pope Rome. It has nothing to do with that.

The following was one of the main reasons why I left protestantism. To me this passage spoke volumes in terms of Jesus’ church being built on Rock, and the gates of hell’s inability to vanquish Jesus’ church. Was my logic wrong in your opinion? I tell you that you are Peter,**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23691b”)] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades

Holy Orthodoxy loves St Peter! Every Orthodox bishop is like St Peter because of the confession of faith that Christ is the Messiah…the Son of the living God. We have a high feast for the Holy Apostles SS Peter and Paul preceded by many weeks of fasting.

:thumbsup:Amen to that brother.

If we say to ourselves ’ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ then we too become Peter, for whoever is united to Christ becomes Peter.
Origen

I agree that all Bishops of their particular church, are vicar’s of Christ, in the CC and the EOCs.

 

[ananye]

I read the following about the Armenian Orthodox… it seems some of them have come back to the Catholic Church as Armenian Catholics?
polymerclaybeads.org

 

[dvdjs]

… why did nobody really question the schism from the perspective of submission to Rome, as is taught today in the Catholic Church? Regardless of when the schism actually took place, communion with the Pope as essential to the faith is pretty far from the mind of everyone, even the Pope himself (he never urged reunion no the basis of the necessity of communion with him).

 

[joe370]

The question of the authority of a Holy Father to preside over the whole Church is the basis of this problem we have in understanding by what forms and definations can be acceptable for the whole Church. It is my own understanding that the East and West actually were not in Communion and agreement even in the early Church as it is sometimes stated. This can be true for the two great witnesses had three things going against this so called Communion. First was language, second was geography and third was a distinct different settings of their exterior sacramental ways. Really there was no intercommunion back then. How can anyone know the other when they hardly travelled and when one speaks latin and the other Greek. No there was hardly any intercommunion among the Laity. Oh yes the Bishops of each Church met on many occasions but they needed interpretation when attending the others Liturgy.

It is in the twentieth century and in this one that the Laity are coming into their own and are discovering who each other are. The language and geogaphic barriers are gone and since our theologies were made with some noticable differences we are dscovering we are also made different. These differences are important for they give to us the means to discover why East and West was made different. The author of these differences was the Holy Spirit and He made sure to establsh them so as to be available to the Laity of the 20th and 21st centuries. You see the two Churches or the two great witnesses as I call them needed to find their own makeup, identity, characteristics and personalites before this same Holy Spirit will instruct them to discover each other. Just like two individuals who needed time to find themselves before they come to know each other so God ordained His two protogees to work after the same pattern.

The struggles of the last 1300 years are what I call “growing up” pains and need not to be the front issues of our discovering of each other. The Popes and Patriarches are now ever learned men who will not act carelessly as it was done in the past for the “former things” have pass away and are now replaced by maturity and longing for the other. We are now in the beginning of this stage of discovery and expectation and it will be the Laity that God has been waiting for to be the front leaders to take charge of this transformation to make our Churches that united Witness He needs to show this world His Church.

It wasn’t necessary for the East to have the Pope of Rome as their leader since they all had their own “Popes” in the form as Patriarchs. These Patriarchs essentially did their work to care their respective Churches of the East. The Pope needed time to build up the Church of Rome as we see it today. These two great Churches were the backbone of God’s message to His world. We have now emerged out of our dfficult formation years and are now ready to become more united than we ever had before. This will take time when the Laity will discover the richness and even the “wine” which the other can give. Sooner or later these issues regarding the Pope to be the “chief shepherd” will come as soon as his office can be recognized to be the importance as a “sign for this unity.” Indeed it is important for the Holy Father to have this care of the Church of God. The Papacy is a great gift God gave to His Church and someday the East will see this sign and gift as necessary for their welfare.

The question of what authority the Holy Father is to have is what this debate is all about. His authority I believe if it is to be acceptable to the rest of the East must be pastoral in its essence if it is to work. This pastoral authority will be more defined later on as we are getting there yet slowly but surely. The East is much different than the West and the conditions of the past will not work to their conclusions so another aspect and consideration must be looked for. Contacts were very important and continued contacts must be further developed. When more understandings do come and more of us are educated in both teachings of East and West then the future will be possible for these more learned men to accept and understand each other.

I really enjoyed reading your post.

 

[joe370]

Peter is the rock because of his confession. Do you think Jesus would build His Church on Peter if Peter went the way of Judas? Is the value of Peter in him being Peter, or is it in the faith he professes?

I agree with you, it is not mutually exclusive. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built. And so is every Apostle and every Bishop since.

Agreed as per scripture: Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself.

 

[joe370]

We have a King, Jesus Christ. Patriarchs aren’t Popes, that is the greatest mistake of every Roman Catholic regarding Orthodox ecclesiology. They aren’t “Pope-lite”. The Church is formed like the Roman Republic, the bishops are the senators and the Emperor is Christ

Understood.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Luke 12:39-44 ." Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward οἰκονόμος oikonomos*]*whom his master will set καθίστημι kathistēmi make ruler] over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions”.

Definition οἰκονόμος oikonomos] = steward, manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has intrusted the management of his affairs

Definition καθίστημι kathistēmi make ruler] 1) to set, place, put a) to set one over a thing (in charge of it) b) to appoint one to administer an office

Then this dispute happens at the last supper over who’s greatest among the apostles. Jesus sets the apostles straight. It’s Peter who is to lead THEM ergo also the Church.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744432&postcount=59
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744436&postcount=60

Jesus never says who is the greatest, but rather told the Apostles that he who serves is the greatest. Was Peter the only one who served? By my last recollection, all Apostles served the Church, all gave their life for the Church literally and figuratively.

 

[joe370]

Jesus never says who is the greatest, but rather told the Apostles that he who serves is the greatest. Was Peter the only one who served? By my last recollection, all Apostles served the Church, all gave their life for the Church literally and figuratively.

I absolutely agree.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am not sure where you get the idea that that is the central argument. In fact, you make the point that it has not been urged, even over all the years during which the Papacy worked to end the schism. It was not a central point, AFAIK, during the various unions. So I don’t get your point.

The Pope’s rule has always been part of the argument. It was clear there was a building opinion in Rome about the Pope’s role over the Church. If you look through the years you will see the gradual progression. The excommunication on the Patriarch of Constantinople was for his refusal to submit to the Pope. How is the Papacy not a central point?

Compared to what?

So benevolence is relative? It is okay to accept the heavy hand of the Latins rather than the heavy hand of the Muslims, is that what you are getting here? I never thought of Catholicism to be about being just slightly better than the next bad guy.

A great deal. And beyond reading, I have a life-long living tradition, as well as a heritage that certainly goes back three centuries as a Greek Catholic (and could quite possibly go back to St Methodius). These give me an insight into the thinking of the people - at least my own - involved in some of these events.

Heritage has nothing to do with it. As one who is of an equal, possibly greater pedigree than yours told me, that history is written by the victor. And while that is a common saying, he mentioned that in the context of our discussion of Church history and the Union of Brest. Every side tells their side as if it is the truth, but what then with the opposing view of each side? Fact is, the unions were a result of politics. The Union of Brest was conveniently signed not long after the authocephally of Moscow.

I think that my summaries, while “simplistic” if you must, bring a bit of balance. Apart from the wild Romophobia of people like Fr. Romanides, or Akzoul, there is a streak of a “Blame the West first” streak among very many who migrate to the East, who no ever sin ever committed by Westerners, and are blissfully ignorant of the dark side of the Byzantine Empire, or even Easter Europeans.

I find that the East are more honest with their sins than the West when the crusades and the inquisition painted in so much bright light rich in polemics. Nobody is pretending here that the East does not have its share of sins, but the topic of this thread is the Orthodox belief on the supreme rule of the Pope. So I don’t know why the sins of the East needs to be discussed. If you feel you want to talk about that, start a thread about it and lets be honest about everything. The East does not pretend they have a man that can do no wrong, all of us have fallen short.

It is difficult to know how people and clergy in other Patriarchates felt about breaking with Rome, and what were the myriad of reasons behind it, and how those feelings and reasons evolved over time, in particular over time spent apart. But I think there was a constant effort in Rome - by means both productive and, sadly, counterproductive - to achieve reconciliation. Has there been a parallel effort in the East. I don’t think so, and I think it extremely peculiar that hasn’t been, and still isn’t such effort.

We can only judge history by what happened, and what happened is that no one really was itching to get back with Rome for the right reason. Florence was really about politics, they were willing to submit to Rome in exchange for military support that never came.

Of course there were constant effort by Rome, like what the Jesuits did. And of course the unia model which sought to forcibly convert the Orthodox to Roman Catholicism.

 

[joe370]

Jesus never says who is the greatest, but rather told the Apostles that he who serves is the greatest. Was Peter the only one who served? By my last recollection, all Apostles served the Church, all gave their life for the Church literally and figuratively.

It seems, based on what you said in another post (correct me if I am wrong) that the self-governing Eastern Orthodox churches simply need not have a singular juridical head, aka bishop, because there is only one head, namely Jesus, the Christ.

It occurred to me though that that was tantamount to rejecting the authority, (in terms of pastoral guidance, and the preservation of truth) of every self-governing Eastern Orthodox Bishop, including the authority of St. Ignatius, a pupil of Saint John. It is the equivalent of saying that the Church in its very infancy didn’t need the Apostles’ authority, because it had Christ for its Head.

As per scripture, and I am getting to my point, he who rejects the Apostles, rejects Christ, just as he who rejects Christ rejects the Father who sent Christ. “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)

That is the basis for the authority St. Ignatius insists, belongs to the bishops, deriving their authority directly from the Apostles. And so arguing that Apostles’ (and bishops’) authority is unnecessary, because one can be governed immediately and directly by the ascended Christ, is a kind of gnosticism, because it denies the materiality (and thus the sacramentality) of ecclesial authority.

The authority of Christ comes down through the Apostles, and through their successors. Christ’s authority over His Church remains visible, by remaining in the succession of the bishops that were authorized by His Apostles. We can see that in St. Irenaeus about seventy years later, when he writes:

“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters [priests] who are in the Church — those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate [bishop], have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also necessary] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever . . . . But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did.” (Adv. haer. IV.26.2)

 

[GaryTaylor]

The heavy hand of Rome as opposed to Islam? A political council to acquire military supplies was the tactic?

 

[ConstantineTG]

It seems, based on what you said in another post (correct me if I am wrong) that the self-governing Eastern Orthodox churches simply need not have a singular juridical head, aka bishop, because there is only one head, namely Jesus, the Christ.

No, you misunderstood me. I said bishops are not “heads” of the Church as the Pope is proclaimed to be by the Catholic Church. And I did say the modern refusal of the term “head” is counter-polemical. Surely in the ancient texts the bishops were referred to as “head” of the local Church. But the current moving away from that language is an effort to emphasize that bishops are not little popes of their own diocese. They are not supreme infallible rulers that dictate on us. There is a reason we call the clergy as “Father”. Fathers are not the supreme rulers of the household.

It occurred to me though that that was tantamount to rejecting the authority, (in terms of pastoral guidance, and the preservation of truth) of every self-governing Eastern Orthodox Bishop, including the authority of St. Ignatius, a pupil of Saint John. It is the equivalent of saying that the Church in its very infancy didn’t need the Apostles’ authority, because it had Christ for its Head.

And this is the biggest problem of papists. That being a “head” always meant “authority”, and “authority” always means “power”. That is not what Christ is nor the Apostles nor what the Bishops are meant to be. While Christ is all-powerful being God, he was humility personified. He humbled himself that he is immortal God who took on mortal flesh and died for us. He came to serve, not to rule. That is why the Jews were disappointed in him, they were expecting an early king, one who rules with power and authority who will defeat the Romans and reestablish the kingdom of Israel. But what did Christ do? He did not sit on a throne and gave orders, he did the dirty work himself. That is why he washed the feet of the Apostles. This is why women want to be priests, because they think they are being deprived a position of power that they demand equal access to. What is wrong there is not about women wanting to be priests, because we ALL are priests (as per 1 Peter) as members of the Church. What is wrong is the perception that the priesthood is about power. It is not. We submit to the teachings of the Apostles because of their own faith and their bearing witness to Christ’s life and passion and resurrection, not because they are “in charge”. Because the basis of our faith is not authority, but truth. And truth stands on its own. No authority can change the truth or make the truth.

As per scripture, and I am getting to my point, he who rejects the Apostles, rejects Christ, just as he who rejects Christ rejects the Father who sent Christ. “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)

That is the basis for the authority St. Ignatius insists, belongs to the bishops, deriving their authority directly from the Apostles. And so arguing that Apostles’ (and bishops’) authority is unnecessary, because one can be governed immediately and directly by the ascended Christ, is a kind of gnosticism, because it denies the materiality (and thus the sacramentality) of ecclesial authority.

No, again you misinterpret what the episcopate is. Apostolic succession isn’t merely about the laying of hands and the proper form of the Sacrament of Ordination. Because there are many who are ordained but are heretics. Aruis was ordained, Maritn Luther was ordained, Honorius is Pope of Rome, there have been a number of heretical Patriarchs of Constantinople, etc. In Orthodoxy, Apostolic Succession has two elements. One is the ordination, the laying of hands. The other is the orthodox faith. One who is heretic cannot bear apostolic succession no matter how many bishops lay their hands on him.

The authority of Christ comes down through the Apostles, and through their successors. Christ’s authority over His Church remains visible, by remaining in the succession of the bishops that were authorized by His Apostles. We can see that in St. Irenaeus about seventy years later, when he writes:

“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters [priests] who are in the Church — those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate [bishop], have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also necessary] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever . . . . But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did.” (Adv. haer. IV.26.2)

There is nothing here that contradicts what I said. In Orthodoxy we are not afraid to say a Patriarch is heretic. Because we know the Church does not stand and fall on the perceived authority of one man, of one office. It is not about authority, but rather about truth.

 

[joe370]

ConstantineTG;

There is nothing here that contradicts what I said. In Orthodoxy we are not afraid to say a Patriarch is heretic. Because we know the Church does not stand and fall on the perceived authority of one man, of one office. It is not about authority, but rather about truth.]

It stands and falls on the perceived authority of who then? I thought it was each presiding bishop of each self-governing church? In order for truth to be discerned e.g. the early councils, some level of authority, in terms of settling disputes, must be used - right?

 

[Schism_hater]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schism hater
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.

Joe370:
You do place it in one man; what I mean is the one bishop (or office) of each and every autocephalous church. Just as you believe that the the ultimate authority is the HS, so does the CC. The CC and the EOCs are not that different in terms of church structure.

The difference is, the authority of any one Orthodox bishop is checked, vis a vis the universal Church, by other bishops, and, ultimately, by ecumenical councils. Furthermore, the Orthodox don’t claim a charism of infallibility for any bishop, no matter how solemnly he pronounces, as Roman Catholics claim for the Pope.

With all due respect and charity, it is my fallible opinion that the main motivation, unconscious no doubt, behind the development of the papacy in the west after the schism, was the desire to locate Christ’s promised guidance in one tangible human office, which culminated at Vatican I. It is an absolutizing of what Christ intended to be a more limited, relational, albeit crucial, role for the Bishop of Rome. It is linked to the deemphasis, in the West, of the Holy Spirit, which was Christ’s promised ultimate means of guidance to the Church. It is of a piece with the dogmatization of the Filioque clause and its associated theology, and the elimination of the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit in the liturgy (happily restored in the Novus Ordo). There was a statement made by a cardinal at roughly the time of Vatican I which stated that Christ had three incarnations: as a babe at Behtlehem, in the Eucharist, and in the Pope. I will try to dig that up if someone needs me to. It is cited somewhere in Fr. Yves Congar’s excellent book, I Believe in the Holy Spirit.

 

[joe370]

[e=Schism hater;10209051]Quote:
Originally Posted by Schism hater
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.

Joe370:
You do place it in one man; what I mean is the one bishop (or office) of each and every autocephalous church. Just as you believe that the the ultimate authority is the HS, so does the CC. The CC and the EOCs are not that different in terms of church structure.

The difference is, the authority of any one Orthodox bishop is checked, vis a vis the universal Church, by other bishops, and, ultimately, by ecumenical councils. Furthermore, the Orthodox don’t claim a charism of infallibility for any bishop, no matter how solemnly he pronounces, as Roman Catholics claim for the Pope.

I was told by other Eastern Orthodox Christians here at CAF that the EO fallible leaders (the fallible church leadership) are infallibly guided by God?

 

[GaryTaylor]

There’s some logic to leave one scratching the head…So they are [Orthodox Bishops] only fallible when not guided by God? Is that in writing by the Patriarch? When do they decide God wasn’t guiding them after they realize they were wrong.

 

[GaryTaylor]

it is my fallible opinion

Fr. Yves Congar’s, is fallible then and we all agree? That is unless you know when and when not the Holy Spirit is guiding here? Do you know?

Is the Trinity infallible?

Is the Incarnation infallible?

Hypostatic Union infallible?

Then explain to me “exactly” why one way or the other.

 

[RKO]

It seems to me that this whole issue of the role of the papacy would have been much easier for both Churches to work out had the papacy not evolved into a type of monarchy.
Peter was and elder and definitely had the prime role in the early Church. But it IS true that subsequent popes used the position to amass power, all kinds of power, which put off the eastern Churches. I don’t blame them.