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

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Popes being fallible is of no issue. We all know men are fallible. This is why all these men, that is those from everywhere as St Irenaeus states, all the Bishops are called to come together as the power and principality because they are the power and principality guided by the HS. That, according to Scripture, is to the end of time and promised. “I’m with YOU” the Apostles.

Its this whole which is infallible, infallible in this sense is for real. “When we all utter the same words in Truth, then that is the Truth” Augustine, Retractions

We want to know when do we know “for certain” the infallible Word of God is being transmitted by “man”.

This occurs as we established on this thread CC/EO, that is the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church

The EO has in history and reality preserved the Faith, the one we all agree on. Thus we don’t need to reconcile what we all agree on, its what advanced for many reasons which needs to be discussed together, and it is by the Church’s. Some doctrines are not of issue. others are as to the Bishop of Rome defining his role as Bishop of Rome in the dialogue [has nothing to do with the Universal Church and his role], and the Creed etc. This is why there is and always has been a teaching authority, simple reason the Mysteries will continue to be revealed, when, is for no one to speculate on. We know they are revealed weekly in the Consecration. …“Communion”

 

[Mickey]

Was my logic wrong in your opinion?

I do not know you. And I am in no place to judge your logic. My journey was different than yours. I was Latin Catholic for 38 years and Byzantine Catholic for eight years. My study and prayer brought me to the Holy Orthodox Church. I believe both Churches have much in common…but I am thoroughly convinced that the Holy Orthodox Church has the completeness of truth.

 

[Mickey]

And this is crucial because no one seat (or throne) is higher than the other.

Indeed.

 

[theistgal]

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?

I believe their understanding is that the Church is infallible, not any one particular leader. So no one leader of the EO could make an infallible pronouncement of a dogma, such as our Pope may do and which the Church is then obliged to accept. In the EO, the leaders (bishops & patriarchs) must all agree in order for it to be considered binding. And even then the laity may reject it.*

Seems to have worked out pretty well - they do seem to have preserved a great deal of unanimity of doctrine over the past couple thousand years. Though how it’s actually lived out in practice may differ.

*Perhaps an EO may correct me if I have that wrong. )

 

[joe370]

I believe their understanding is that the Church is infallible, not any one particular leader. So no one leader of the EO could make an infallible pronouncement of a dogma, such as our Pope may do and which the Church is then obliged to accept. In the EO, the leaders (bishops & patriarchs) must all agree in order for it to be considered binding. And even then the laity may reject it.*

Seems to have worked out pretty well - they do seem to have preserved a great deal of unanimity of doctrine over the past couple thousand years. Though how it’s actually lived out in practice may differ.

*Perhaps an EO may correct me if I have that wrong. )

So the EO church is infallible. However, the EO church cannot make use of said infallibility via the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

 

[joe370]

I do not know you. And I am in no place to judge your logic. My journey was different than yours. I was Latin Catholic for 38 years and Byzantine Catholic for eight years. My study and prayer brought me to the Holy Orthodox Church. I believe both Churches have much in common…but I am thoroughly convinced that the Holy Orthodox Church has the completeness of truth.

That’s cool.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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

It is futile for the denier, Mickey. The quotes are genuine and come from the history of the Church. The arguments arising from them are logical conclusions.

As promised…

St. John Chrystostom

“Rightly therefore, did Christ say, ‘Who is that faithful servant and prudent, whom the Lord will set over His house?’ The words are again as of one who knows not; but He Who spoke them did not speak in ignorance. But, as when He asked Peter whether he loved Him, He questioned His disciple’s love, not because He did not know it, but because He desired to show the excess of His own love, so now when He says: ‘Who is that faithful servant and prudent?’ He says it not because He knew not that faithful and prudent servant, but because He wished to show the rarity of the thing and the greatness of the rule [Greek]. See how great is the reward: ‘I will set him,’ saith He, ‘over all My goods.’ Will you, then, still complain that I have deceived you, when you are to be set over all the goods of God, and when you are doing those things in doing which Christ said that Peter would be able to surpass [Greek] the other apostles? For He said: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me more than these? Feed My sheep.’” (De Sacerdotio, 2, I, 632[371-2])

The prime minister had an incredible amount of authority, what can only be called a supreme or plenary authority beside that of the King. Thus the prime minister or chief steward of the house of David had successors. He is described as being “over the household” and “in charge of the palace” (Isa 22:15; 36:3; 1 Kings 4:6; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18); as for his authority “what he shall open, no one shall shut…and what he shall shut, no one shall open” (Isa 22:22; Matt 16:19; Rev 3:7). This is the language of the “keys,” “binding,” and “loosing” that Jesus was using in Matthew 16:19. Peter was given the “keys” just as the prime minister had the “key to the house of David” (Isa 22:22). And this is important in seeing the parallel to Matthew 16:19 – the prime minister was an office of dynastic succession (Isa 22:19,22). In other words, when the prime minister or chief steward died, another one would be selected to fill the office and take his place. Jesus recognizes the office of prime minister or chief steward (“manager” NIV) in his parables, as one who has been placed in charge and set over the household (Matt 24:45ff; 20:8; Luke 12:42; 16:1ff; cf. Gen 41:40ff; 43:19; 44:4; 45:8ff).

An oft-neglected Scriptural passage in direct support of the office of primacy/supremacy in the Church is Matthew 24:45-51, about the servant whom the Master will set over the household when the Master leaves. St. John Chrysostom (for one) explicitly applied these passages to St. Peter and his successors in the bishops of Rome. This is especially relevant, as St. Chrysostom was from the Church of Antioch.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Continuing…

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

St. Jerome

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]*

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

And yet more; and still more if you want to see them. If anyone would like to respond, denial will not suffice. Counter citations will, as will cogent arguments based on Scripture and the history of the Church.

St. Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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

You left out the “one chief” part of his argument, and that’s the point. Of course there have always been a number of bishops. In the Church of Jesus Christ there has always been a pope to settle disputes and validate the doctrinal decisions of the Councils.

 

[Mickey]

St. John Chrystostom

“Rightly therefore, did Christ say, ‘Who is that faithful servant and prudent, whom the Lord will set over His house?’ The words are again as of one who knows not; but He Who spoke them did not speak in ignorance. But, as when He asked Peter whether he loved Him, He questioned His disciple’s love, not because He did not know it, but because He desired to show the excess of His own love, so now when He says: ‘Who is that faithful servant and prudent?’ He says it not because He knew not that faithful and prudent servant, but because He wished to show the rarity of the thing and the greatness of the rule [Greek]. See how great is the reward: ‘I will set him,’ saith He, ‘over all My goods.’ Will you, then, still complain that I have deceived you, when you are to be set over all the goods of God, and when you are doing those things in doing which Christ said that Peter would be able to surpass [Greek] the other apostles? For He said: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me more than these? Feed My sheep.’” (De Sacerdotio, 2, I, 632[371-2])

That has nothing to do with the institution of a sureme infallible bishop of Rome which one must be in submission to. PS…Are you familiar with the Greek usage of the word “love” in John 21.

Here is something else:
He speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His Church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it [St. John Chrysostom]

The prime minister had an incredible amount of authority, what can only be called a supreme or plenary authority beside that of the King. Thus the prime minister or chief steward of the house of David had successors. He is described as being “over the household” and “in charge of the palace” (Isa 22:15; 36:3; 1 Kings 4:6; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18); as for his authority “what he shall open, no one shall shut…and what he shall shut, no one shall open” (Isa 22:22; Matt 16:19; Rev 3:7). This is the language of the “keys,” “binding,” and “loosing” that Jesus was using in Matthew 16:19. Peter was given the “keys” just as the prime minister had the “key to the house of David” (Isa 22:22). And this is important in seeing the parallel to Matthew 16:19 – the prime minister was an office of dynastic succession (Isa 22:19,22). In other words, when the prime minister or chief steward died, another one would be selected to fill the office and take his place. Jesus recognizes the office of prime minister or chief steward (“manager” NIV) in his parables, as one who has been placed in charge and set over the household (Matt 24:45ff; 20:8; Luke 12:42; 16:1ff; cf. Gen 41:40ff; 43:19; 44:4; 45:8ff).

Who wrote this? It does not seem to come from one of the Fathers of the Church.

 

[Mickey]

You left out the “one chief” part of his argument,

There is no “one chief.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

St Cyprians passage above is often taken to mean the chair of Peter was the equivalent of the universal episcopate.

In another work, however, St Cyprian clearly identified the chair of Peter with the See of Rome.

“After all this, they yet in addition, having had a false bishop ordained for them by the heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, and to the principal Church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise. They fail to reflect that those Romans are the same as those whose faith was publicly praised by the Apostle, to whom unbelief cannot have access.”

From…12.Cyprian, Ep. 59, to Cornelius (CSEL 3,683): “Post ista adhuc insuper pseudoepiscope sibi ab haereticis constituto nauvigare audent et ad Petri cathedram adque ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitatis sacerdotalis exorta est ad schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanos quorum fides apostolo praedicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessam.”

John 21:15-17 is held to reveal no less than a personal commission as guardian of the entire Church.

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep".

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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.

That would be the solution to all this discord…that the Holy Spirit would manifest Himself visibly in our Church, write bulls and encyclicals, declare, audibly so all could hear Him, true doctrine and dogma. Produce the Holy Spirit and your argument will conclude the debate. Absenting that, we must be content with faith that the Holy Spirit will guide the Pope and the Councils to all truth, as He has for 2000 years.

Christ explicitly set Peter over His Church. Explicitly!

Based on my experience, most Orthodox have convinced themselves, or act like they’re convinced, Catholics believe the pope is a dictator and all his authority is vested in the man holding the office.

Here’s a question for any Orthodox who wants to take a stab at it. How do you define infallibility as understood by Catholics?

 

[Mickey]

St. Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Have you ever read St Augustine’s retractions?
St Augustine****
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. St Augustine

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

This is proof of nothing. We all know that St Peter received the keys and the power to bind and loose…as did all the apostles.

 

[Mickey]

John 21:15-17 is held to reveal no less than a personal commission as guardian of the entire Church.

There was a triple affirmation to atone fro St Peter’s triple denial. Also St Peter was grieved because he could not understand the meaning of agape love that Christ was referring to.

 

[Mickey]

Christ explicitly set Peter over His Church.

Yes. And all the apostles and prophets with Christ as the Cornerstone.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Great point. And as we know the keys are linked to binding and loosing and we see in Matthew 18:18 (and again in St John’s Gospel) that all the Apostles were given that authority.

The keys are linked to binding and loosing as applied to Peter only. He alone received the keys. He received the binding/loosing authority first and the others later. For that reason they mean diffferent things, or the Lord wouldn’t have done it that way.

With Peter they signify universal juridiction over the Church, with the Apostles they apply, as the text indicates, to the binding and loosing of sins and perhaps to the governance of their particular sees.

You are free to have your own opinions, Mickey, but you’re not entitled to your own facts or your own Bible.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There was a triple affirmation to atone fro St Peter’s triple denial. Also St Peter was grieved because he could not understand the meaning of agape love that Christ was referring to.

Right both are correct.

The Retractions, Bogan R.S.M.20:1

“In a passage of the book, I said about the Apostle Peter: on him as on a rock the Church was built” This idea is also expressed in a song by the voice of many in the verse’s of the most Blessed Ambrose where he speaks of the Crowing of the Cock. Let the reader decide which is more probable".

Right he presents this both ways and left this for the Church to decide. For his intent was to align his teaching with the Church.

 

[Apotheoun]

Great point. And as we know the keys are linked to binding and loosing and we see in Matthew 18:18 (and again in St John’s Gospel) that all the Apostles were given that authority.

True. Plus, as has been said many time already, the bishops in general are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, for there is no unique sacrament of petrine succession.