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

[Genesis315]

I haven’t read the whole thread, but there’s plenty of examples of the East acknowledging the Pope’s authority.

Maybe St. Gregory, acknowledged as the “Great” even in the East was lying, but he said:
St. Gregory:

For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see.

newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

The East would not do anything significant without Rome’s approval. For example, regarding which Council was legitimate, that of Nicea II or Hieria, the Patriarch of Constantinople St. Nicephoros wrote:
St. Nicephorus:

Without them [the Bishops of Rome or their legates], no dogma can receive definitive approbation…for they preside over the episcopal office and they have received this dignity from the two leading Apostles.

 

[joe370]

dzheremi

Your thoughts on post 456?

 

[Schism_hater]

haven’t read the whole thread, but there’s plenty of examples of the East acknowledging the Pope’s authority.

Maybe St. Gregory, acknowledged as the “Great” even in the East was lying, but he said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Gregory
For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see.

newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

See, this is what I just don’t get about RC e-pologetics. The question was whether the East had officially and consistently submitted to the Pope’s authority, and you put up a quote by a Pope saying that he has authority over the East. Many Popes said that, and the fact that they said that is completely irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Genesis315]

haven’t read the whole thread, but there’s plenty of examples of the East acknowledging the Pope’s authority.

Maybe St. Gregory, acknowledged as the “Great” even in the East was lying, but he said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Gregory
For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see.

newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

See, this is what I just don’t get about RC e-pologetics. The question was whether the East had officially and consistently submitted to the Pope’s authority, and you put up a quote by a Pope saying that he has authority over the East. Many Popes said that, and the fact that they said that is completely irrelevant to this thread.

Why? He’s a historical witness that claims the East did consistently submit to the Apostolic See. He’s also a witness whose character and orthodoxy is praised and respected in the East. Was St. Gregory lying or delusional or did the East actually submit to him?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Let’s fix that note the codes of canon law for the East, mentioned in each link

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

What does the CCEO have to do with the Orthodox Church?

 

[joe370]

haven’t read the whole thread, but there’s plenty of examples of the East acknowledging the Pope’s authority.

Maybe St. Gregory, acknowledged as the “Great” even in the East was lying, but he said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Gregory
For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see.

newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

See, this is what I just don’t get about RC e-pologetics. The question was whether the East had officially and consistently submitted to the Pope’s authority, and you put up a quote by a Pope saying that he has authority over the East. Many Popes said that, and the fact that they said that is completely irrelevant to this thread.

Well, do you believe that those folks were lying in an attempt to throw their proverbial weight around, so to speak? But I suppose it is irrelevant to the OP which is asking the question: Did the Orthodox Churches ever submit to the Pope’s Authority. People should be looking for eastern orthodox quotes.

 

[steve_b]

What does the CCEO have to do with the Orthodox Church?

The question was, (emphasis mine)

:Originally Posted by ConstantineTG http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Funny comment, because this thread has gone for 30 pages and yet no one has ever proven that the Eastern Churches ever submitted to Rome’s administration.

• Melkites are an Eastern Catholic Church who were Orthodox, but accepted the jurisdiction of the pope, so as Bp John says, they are 100% Catholic, which as he says *"*we declared our union with Rome – in consistency with Apostolic tradition… the Melkite Church has chosen dependency as a price for unity, in order to comply with the will of our Lord who prayed repeatedly “that all may be one.” (John 17)
• Re: CCEO mentioned, that was an “also” to go with the link. CCEO mentioned, codifies Eastern unity with the pope.

 

[Schism_hater]

Why? He’s a historical witness that claims the East did consistently submit to the Apostolic See. He’s also a witness whose character and orthodoxy is praised and respected in the East. Was St. Gregory lying or delusional or did the East actually submit to him?

St. Gregory doesn’t have to be delusional or lying, simply erroneous. It happens to the best of us. Or I suppose I might say delusional in a very mild and charitable sense. He was a Pope, and his predecessors had already marked out by his time strong claims for papal authority.

The point is, you need consistent statements by eastern patriarchs saying this type of thing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The question was, (emphasis mine)

• Melkites are an Eastern Catholic Church who were Orthodox, but accepted the jurisdiction of the pope, so as Bp John says, they are 100% Catholic, which as he says *"*we declared our union with Rome – in consistency with Apostolic tradition… the Melkite Church has chosen dependency as a price for unity, in order to comply with the will of our Lord who prayed repeatedly “that all may be one.” (John 17)
• Re: CCEO mentioned, that was an “also” to go with the link. CCEO mentioned, codifies Eastern unity with the pope.

Then pardon my terminology. Obviously the context is with the original thread topic, which is about Orthodox Churches. We are talking East and West during the First Millennium.,

 

[joe370]

St. Gregory doesn’t have to be delusional or lying, simply erroneous. It happens to the best of us. Or I suppose I might say delusional in a very mild and charitable sense. He was a Pope, and his predecessors had already marked out by his time strong claims for papal authority.

The point is, you need consistent statements by eastern patriarchs saying this type of thing.

Could the early ecumenical councils embraced by both east and west, have been erroneous, i.e. the same logic applied?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Could the early ecumenical councils embraced by both east and west, have been erroneous, i.e. the same logic applied?

Well, the East never holds them as infallible. Catholics share the assertion that councils never invent new doctrine, just define them in defense from heresy. So it is possible that how we explained something may prove to be erroneous without changing what we believed in the first place.

 

[dzheremi]

When you wrote the following, I understood you to say he did lose his apostleship.

He never lost his apostolic powers.

I think we might have different ideas of what is being discussed here. In light of the context in which St. Cyril evokes the idea, it would be too much to say that he lost his apostolic powers (or however you want to put it). Rather, in the context of the quoted portion, the Lord Jesus Christ restored him from the sin he would commit by denying Christ. As to how that would affect his apostleship…well, obviously it would not be possible to betray Christ and remain an apostle without some kind of contrition or otherwise intervening (as we remember Judas not as the apostle he once was, but as the traitor he is), which seems to be in keeping with St. Cyril’s wording about Christ pardoning St. Peter even before he had committed the error. In other words, it shows Christ’s incredible and boundless mercy, not supremacy for the Roman Pope.

the Catholic Church, has been here since the 1st century and is the Church of the creed.

I agree. And that Church is not in Rome. You probably know that the Orthodox Church also uses the Creed – sans filioque, with the appropriate adjectives intact. “Catholic” was not used as a noun to refer to the Roman Church until post-Reformation times.

As the chair of Peter, she has consistently understood her primacy of leadership over the the entire Church from the beginning. I’ll let Bp John, a Melkite Catholic from Antioch as well, give their understanding of the papacy.
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites note the Eastern canon laws mentioned

What do the Melkite Catholics have to do with anything? The Melkites are not in communion with the Orthodox Church. Nothing in that link has any bearing on anything. Eastern canon laws are for Eastern Catholics, not Orthodox.

Since division as you know is condemned in scripture, that can only leave one Church, not many, in accord with Jesus prayer, “that they all maybe one as you Father and I are one”.

I agree, but I do not want to be blunt about it, as I know where I am posting. Suffice it to say, I agree that only one Church of the many who claim this apostolic see as their own is the Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Submit is a difficult word to place in context with the mission of the Church which is exemplified throughout the world in reality in Matthew 25- “The Lord answered, Truly I say to you, as you did to the least of my brethren, you did to me”. The mission is realized throughout the world in areas such as India with Mother Theresa’s work with the poorest of the poor, in Syria last week with the Mother Superior speaking out on Christian persecution. in America with the yearly struggle with Abortion and religious freedom.

This list goes on and on and throughout the past. You can’t keep it, till you give it away, that is the Love of the Lord.

We need to stick to the teachings of the Church and admit we don’t have all the answers. That is what has served mankind, and the family throughout time and especially when the effort in unified. This is how we came out of the dark historically, and will again with the on-going mess, which by large is confusion, people are lost, they are walking in the dark. Again we have the weak suffering to the selfishness of others.

The only submission is to Christ and His word- One Church-Unity. The rest is the mission. The mission doesn’t end because in one’s infinite wisdom they can’t wrap their head “exactly” around a Church teaching. Which suggests the Church may be wrong and we may lead astray. No-one asked that question for 300-year after Christ “maybe this is wrong” as they marched to martyrdom. If “ever” a time existed when anyone would question the Church, truly it would have been then. It didn’t happen.

And there certainly is no reason now especially in light of reading this thread.

 

[joe370]

Well, the East never holds them as infallible. Catholics share the assertion that councils never invent new doctrine, just define them in defense from heresy. So it is possible that how we explained something may prove to be erroneous without changing what we believed in the first place.

I understand.

 

[dzheremi]

Your thoughts on post 456?

See Schism Hater’s post, #458. This is essentially what my reply would’ve been. Roman bishops have long been asserting prerogatives unique to them by virtue of their See and trying to tell other Sees what to do (since before Chalcedon at least; see Pope Leo’s infamous letter to Pope Dioscoros, which was ignored). So that fact that you found such quotes is not surprising, nor terribly meaningful.

 

[branchofjesse]

Ah yes, the unfortunate and constant festering wound of the Great Schism of 1054 . . … I would like to first point out the rather small irony that it was an Eastern patriarch who was first referred to as “pope” (Heracleus, the thirteenth Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria in the third century). Of course this does not mean that he was a successor to St Peter or had any of the privileges attributed to the Bishop of Rome; it is simply a derivation of the term πάππας or papa–father. But to answer the OP, it would certainly appear from the historical record that the Eastern churches did look to the successor to the “Prince of the Apostles” (St. Basil’s words) for guidance and authority. Some of the Eastern churches, however, never broke away. The Maronites never severed relations with Rome, nor did the Melkites. The derisively titled “uniate” churches are comprised of what are generally called Greek or Byzantine Catholic. As for the schism itself, I believe several main factors have contributed to this tragedy. I also believe they are mostly historical in nature not theological. I think the main issues can be traced to the coronation of Charles the Great on Christmas Day as Emperor by Pope St Leo III, which clearly did not impress the Emperor residing in Constantinople, the ever drifting apart of the two sides of the Empire, and consequently the church, and finally outright persecution. The Orthodox have often been quick to bring up the sack of Constantinople in 1204, but rarely acknowledge the Massacre of the Latins that took place in the city in 1182 (even when Bishop Kallistos Ware mentions this episode in his book “Orthodoxy” he goes on to say it still wasn’t as bad as the sack of 1204). Tens of thousands were killed and many were sold to the Turks to be used as slaves. I sincerely believe that a certain type of xenophobia exists within the Orthodox culture too. Patriarchs who have rejected union with Rome in the past are celebrated in the liturgies, devotions of the West are frowned upon though they do not contradict Eastern theology, and the Catholic Church is generally referred to derisively when brought up amongst Orthodox believers. These are all things I have experienced personally. Charity could certainly be observed a little more–on both sides, though I do have to add that I see it more on the Catholic side. For example, the worst book I have ever seen published against the Orthodox Church was by Vladimir Soloviev–one book published over one hundred years ago!–but, I still find books (recently published) from St Vladimir’s Press that find it necessary to get their digs in against Rome. I think that we should consider the true nature of our faith and rely a little less on the venom that has historically proven to bring nothing but misery and division to the Church. If my being forward has offended anyone, forgive me as that is not my intention.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

If the Orthodox wont believe a Saint (Pope Gregory) who said during the first millineum and while the churchs were united that the East is subject to Rome ,than they are not going to believe any poster here

Even the EO bishops who want to unite with Rome ,alot of Orthodox break communion with them and want them excommunicated for a betrayal of the faith

Let those who desire union come in their own time and those that dont let them carry on with their own path

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Pope, as inheriting the primacy of Peter, was simply the divinely appointed Head of the episcopal college, the divinely constituted organ and mouthpiece of the universal apostolic episcopate, we could, I think, admit that there was a genuine continuity with the position of the Papacy in the primitive and undivided Church.

The primacy which could not perfectly function in today’s divided Christianity. Only when the universal episcopate was reunited could the papacy find its proper place.
The reception of the fullness of the power of Christ’s high priesthood, the council maintained, enabled a bishop to validly administer all of the Church’s sacraments which took their effect ex opere operato. Yet he was not to do so without papal approval.

It was stressed that the teaching and governing offices of a bishop could only be properly exercised when the prelate was in hierarchical communion with the episcopal college and with its head, the Bishop of Rome. Consecration itself was said to give a bishop the virtual capacity to exercise these offices, but not their actual realization. This latter could not be without the requisite canonical or juridical determination by the hierarchical authority under the pope.

The council noted that the New Testament depicted Peter and the other Apostles constituting one apostolic college. In a similar manner the pope and the bishops were said to be joined together in one episcopal college. This similarity was not meant to imply that there was a transmission of the extraordinary power of the Apostles to their successors, nor that there was an equality between the head and the members of the episcopal college. It was intended only to demonstrate the proportionality existing between the relationship of Peter to the other Apostles and that of the Pope to the bishops.

The council stated that in ancient times duly established bishops throughout the world were in communion with one another and with the papacy in a bond of charity, unity and peace. At times, in order to settle common issues of importance, councils (including ecumenical councils) were held and the bishops’ opinions were prudently considered.

The ancient practice of several bishops taking part in the consecration of a bishop-elect was cited as an example of episcopal collegiality. Here also the new bishop was said to have gained hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.

With respect to papal primacy, Vatican II upheld the doctrines of Vatican I. It was asserted that the episcopal college had no authority apart from its head, the Roman pontiff, who had the full primacy over both the Church’s pastors and the faithful. As the Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the pope was held to enjoy over the Church supreme, full and universal power which he was always free to exercise.

The episcopal college in union with its head was also said to share in the supreme and full power over the Catholic Church But this could be exercised only with the consent of the pope, since he was the successor of Peter who alone was the rock and the sole bearer of the keys. The bearing of the keys was not equated with the power of binding and loosing which Christ gave to all the Apostles.

The principle underlying collegiality is that the apostolic calling, responsibility, and authority are an inheritance given to the whole body or college of bishops. Every individual bishop has therefore a responsibility both as a member of this college and as chief pastor in his diocese . In the latter capacity he exercises direct oversight over the people committed to his charge. In the former he shares with his brother bishops throughout the world a concern for the well-being of the whole Church
[Father Hardin Lambeth]

 

[Peter_J]

Why? He’s a historical witness that claims the East did consistently submit to the Apostolic See. He’s also a witness whose character and orthodoxy is praised and respected in the East. Was St. Gregory lying or delusional or did the East actually submit to him?

See, this is what I just don’t get about RC e-pologetics. The question was whether the East had officially and consistently submitted to the Pope’s authority, and you put up a quote by a Pope saying that he has authority over the East. Many Popes said that, and the fact that they said that is completely irrelevant to this thread.

Well, when dialogue gets to the point of “Was so-and-so lying or delusional?” perhaps its time to take a page out of a certain Cardinal’s playbook (from Baltimore 2000) and walk out. But if this hadn’t become a “Was he lying or delusional?” point, I think that quote would’ve been perfectly relevant.

 

[Peter_J]

Melkites are an Eastern Catholic Church who were Orthodox, but accepted the jurisdiction of the pope,

We could likewise point to plenty of Orthodox who were Catholic but then decided to switch sides. However, I don’t see what that accomplishes other than stirring up rancor.