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

[Cavaradossi]

This is really not the right way to be behaving on Theophany. I think maybe the participants here should take a break, and reassess how we’re treating others.

 

[Mickey]

This is really not the right way to be behaving on Theophany. I think maybe the participants here should take a break, and reassess how we’re treating others.

You are correct my brother in Christ. I am unsubscribing from this thread. I beg forgiveness from all whom I may have offended.

Christ was baptized!
In the Jordan!

 

[brb3]

This thread at times has been entertaining, enlightening and exasperating. I have to say the Orthodox posters have exhibited the patience of saints here, I wish I could say the same for all of the Catholic posters.

Just reading the thread though has given me much clarity as to where I am and where I should be.

And …

did Mickey The Elder, et al. … win u over with their wit, charm, and spin. ? :ballspin:

 

[Jacob50]

St Augustine saw St Peter’s succession in every bishop. I’m thinking if he were alive today, he would be in the Holy Orthodox Church.

Giving your own opinion concerning where would St. Augustine be, is just your opinion. Augustine isn’t here with us today physically today decide that. I could also say:

“If he were alive today, he would be in the Holy Catholic Church. ”

He wasn’t around when the schism occurred (c. 1054 A.D.). Therefore, stating such comments are just mere “opinions”. I could claim that all the 12 apostles would be in the Catholic Church had they still be living. But these assertions hold no strength whatsoever by just basing them on one’s opinion. And what you just gave is your opinion, without any particular fundamental argument attached to it.

 

[RyanBlack]

And …

did Mickey The Elder, et al. … win u over with their wit, charm, and spin. ? :ballspin:

If this isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

No it doesn’t. You posted something without citation…and I am fairly certain it does not have patristioc origin.

It has Scriptural origin. Try reading it before posting self-serving allegations.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Here is a better question. Why did it take more than 1800 years for Rome to define this “infallibility?”

So what does infallibility mean to you? What are you afraid of? if you don’t know the doctrine of papal and conciliar infallibility, just say so instead of answering a question with a question, which is a very tiresome, very old and quite useless Protestant trick.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Yes. And we know that the Orthodox Church which is 2000 years old with apostolic succession recites the creed…and she is orthodox…and she is catholic.

Now if you want to talk about some protestantization analogies…I have tons of them relating to my long time in the Roman Catholic Church…but I don’t think you want to talk about that.

I’ll talk about anything you want to talk about, pal, but it seems you don’t want to talk about anything. All you post is sarcastic wise cracks and snide insults. It looks to me like you know less than I think you do.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I’m not getting into this fray, but I have to say that exact question recurs to me constantly. No, I’m not going to elucidate on that for a variety of reasons, but I will make a reference to something [post=10183508] I posted[/post] recently in another thread.

“Whereas I have no intention of getting involved in this discussion, FWLIW I will offer one observation. I have ever been amused by the fact that both of the two most “controversial” (for lack of a more charitable word at the moment) dogmatic declarations of the Roman Church were made within 20 years of each other and of course under the very same Roman Pontiff.”

I’ve found that when someone says ‘I don’t want to talk about it.’ they usually mean either they won’t like what the conversation will reveal or they can’t defend what they believe.

Two days ago I asked the Orthodox on the site how they define the Catholic doctrine of infallibility. Not a single response. Yours doesn’t help the conversation a bit.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I agree with you malphono. It is very disturbing. It was disturbing to me while in communion with Rome…and it is still disturbing to me.

And I am very close to getting out of this fray myself. I have been in this fray too many times.

It start to get very snarky.

As led by you. Another thing Protestants always do is run for cover when they sense the Catholics are starting to get the best of them.

You can define ‘infallibility’ any time, Mick. Or you can run away.

 

[steve_b]

A classic example of eisegesis (reading something into scripture that isn’t there). Christ never tells the apostles Peter is to lead them or rule them. In Luke he indicates Peter will have a leadership role in the early Church, which no one denies. That is far removed from the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Not to mention Acts 15 destroys any notion of Peter as “ruler” over the early Church, much less his successors.

All I see here is denial. No answer to what was presented

 

[steve_b]

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.

Who was the only name mentioned when Jesus broke up the argument?

 

[Schism_hater]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey
Here is a better question. Why did it take more than 1800 years for Rome to define this “infallibility?”

Why did it take 300 years for the Church to define the Trinity? 300 years is a long time to “put off” defining such a fundamental mystery of the Christian faith.

The first 300 years of the Church, (actually one could say the first 450) is universally recognized as a formative period in which the basic theology of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and with the cooperation of the whole Church, was developed. The same cannot be said for the western part of the Church in the period c. 1100- 1870. Therefore I don’t think the comparison is apt.

The Church moves very slowly and has only gradually defined and articulated the deposit of faith entrusted to the saints. For a Catholic, Our Lord already alluded to infallibility when He promised St. Peter that He, the Divine Savior, had prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail. A number of Fathers, East and West, speak of the indefectibility of the faith of Peter for the prayer of the Savior cannot be without fruit.

The personal faith of Peter and his succesors is a different issue from infallibility. As we have been told many times, even a wicked, unfaithful Pope would have the charism of infallibility. Boniface VIII made at least domgatic ex cathedra statement, yet the Catholic writer Dante put him in hell in his Divine Comedy.

St. Irenaeus alerady tells us in the second century that Rome is the Church with which all of the churches must agree.

The passage, of which we have only a Latin translation of a Greek original, is more nuanced than that. Irenaeaus was arguing against the Gnostics, and used Rome as the premier example of the apostolic succession which preserved the true faith, as opposed to Gnosticism. At that time the Church of Rome was the preeminent see due to its position as capital of Rome and the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, so it is not surprising that Irenaeaus would say that it must be agreed with. In fact, all the apostolic sees were in agreement at that time.

Papal infallibility is not a central tenant of the faith - it is rarely, rarely, rarely, rarely, rarely exercised…

It depends on who you ask. The Relatio of Bishop Gasser, the preeminent theoliogian at VI, which is often put forward as a crucial official interpretation of the VI decree (see the Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius Press, 2008) states, in the context of the VI decree, “Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic decrees have gone forth from the Apostolic See…” (Gift of Infallibility, p. 51). This is what is frustrating about any discussion of infallibility; while RCs are adamant that the Pope has this charism and that it is indispensable for the guidance of the Church, they vary widely as to which papal decrees are or are not infallible and how many (even roughly) there are. It’s almost as if the only important thing is agreement that the charism exists, not the substantive guidance it is supposed to give. And if it is not a central tenet of the faith, why then was it solemnly proclaimed, and any dissent from it solemnly anathematized?

 

[Schism_hater]

"Two days ago I asked the Orthodox on the site how they define the Catholic doctrine of infallibility. Not a single response. Yours doesn’t help the conversation a bit.

Ok, I understand by the RC doctrine of infallibility a charism given to the Church by which it is incapable of misleading when it decides a matter of doctrine. As applied speciically to the Pope, it means a charism given to his office whereby ex cathedra statements (statements by the Pope in virtue of his office as “universal shepherd” which are meant to bind the Church) on matters of faith or morals are incapable of being in error, and are “irreformeable” by anyone else.

There you go, now you can make your point.

 

[Schism_hater]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schism hater

A classic example of eisegesis (reading something into scripture that isn’t there). Christ never tells the apostles Peter is to lead them or rule them. In Luke he indicates Peter will have a leadership role in the early Church, which no one denies. That is far removed from the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Not to mention Acts 15 destroys any notion of Peter as “ruler” over the early Church, much less his successors.

Steve b:
All I see here is denial. No answer to what was presented

The answer is right there. If something isn’t in scripture, it isn’t in scripture, and all anyone can say is that it isn’t there.

 

[joe370]

Ok, I understand by the RC doctrine of infallibility a charism given to the Church by which it is incapable of misleading when it decides a matter of doctrine. As applied speciically to the Pope, it means a charism given to his office whereby ex cathedra statements (statements by the Pope in virtue of his office as “universal shepherd” which are meant to bind the Church) on matters of faith or morals are incapable of being in error, and are “irreformeable” by anyone else.

There you go, now you can make your point.

Leaving the papal stuff out of it for the moment: doesn’t the EO Church and OO church respectively, believe the same thing, in terms of the charism given to the each Church by which it is incapable of misleading when it decides a matter of doctrine?

 

[joe370]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schism hater

A classic example of eisegesis (reading something into scripture that isn’t there). Christ never tells the apostles Peter is to lead them or rule them. In Luke he indicates Peter will have a leadership role in the early Church, which no one denies. That is far removed from the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Not to mention Acts 15 destroys any notion of Peter as “ruler” over the early Church, much less his successors.

Steve b:
All I see here is denial. No answer to what was presented

The answer is right there. If something isn’t in scripture, it isn’t in scripture, and all anyone can say is that it isn’t there.

I agree that Peter was not granted authority to rule the other apostles. Another example of reading something into scripture that isn’t there: Ecumenical Councils, and yet we see them in Christian history. Not trying to make a point about anything; it just popped into my mind as I was typing.

 

[kutelove90]

I thinks peter was the Bishop of Rome and his successor is today considered the second Pope. There is an unbroken line of succession which Catholics can claim, reaching back to the Apostolic Age and Peter’s reign car games .

 

[steve_b]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schism hater

A classic example of eisegesis (reading something into scripture that isn’t there). Christ never tells the apostles Peter is to lead them or rule them. In Luke he indicates Peter will have a leadership role in the early Church, which no one denies. That is far removed from the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Not to mention Acts 15 destroys any notion of Peter as “ruler” over the early Church, much less his successors.

Steve b:
All I see here is denial. No answer to what was presented

The answer is right there. If something isn’t in scripture, it isn’t in scripture, and all anyone can say is that it isn’t there.

The scripture was presented. No words were changed, no words were left out.

 

[steve_b]

I agree that Peter was not granted authority to rule the other apostles. Another example of reading something into scripture that isn’t there: Ecumenical Councils, and yet we see them in Christian history. Not trying to make a point about anything; it just popped into my mind as I was typing.

After the conclusion of the last supper, but they are still in the upper room, Jesus broke up an argument between the apostles over who is the greatest among THEM, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744432&postcount=59
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744436&postcount=60

Jesus does not deny one of the apostles is the greatest. Jesus affirms it.

• Jesus then identifies who is behind the argument. It’s Satan sifting them like wheat. *Jesus then specifically names who He prays for, because THAT’s the one, who will lead them out of the sifting. Thereby, ending the argument over who is greatest apostle answered. Jesus AGAIN names Peter. *

the Greek that is used in that exchange and other exchanges, clarifies the point. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10208668&postcount=275

Notice the times “rule” (in the Greek) comes into play in the texts presented. Notice In those definitions it is talking about “one” steward in particular who is selected. That doesn’t discount that there are other stewards. Just that there is one in particular who rules over all.