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

[Maron_Ignatius]

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 am not sure if what you are saying is fully correct - or I might of miss understood you Constantine. From my understanding the Orthodox - I take it we are referring to the Eastern Orthodox - Church views Ecumenical Councils, infallible, in that it has to be received by the whole body of the Church. In other words, the Orthodox Church believes:Since the Church as a whole is infallible the councils are infallible when they are received by the whole body of the Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Seems to be that on-going issue.

Basic Websight see’s the dilemma also.

"The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as ‘Canons’ and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching. The doctrine does not claim that every aspect of every ecumenical council is infallible.

The Roman Catholic Church holds this doctrine,[1] [as do most] or all Eastern Orthodox theologians. However, the Orthodox churches accept only the first seven general councils as genuinely ecumenical, while Roman Catholics accept twenty-one. Only a very few Protestants believe in the infallibility of ecumenical councils, but they usually restrict this infallibility to the Christological statements of the first seven councils. Lutheran Christians recognize the first four councils,[2] whereas most High Church Anglicans accept all seven as persuasive but not infallible.[3]

While the Russian Orthodox Church does recognize the first seven ecumenical councils as valid, some Russian Orthodox[who?] theologians believe that the infallibility of these councils’ statements derived from their acceptance by the faithful (and thus from the infallibility of all believers), and not from the acts of the councils themselves. This differs from the Greek Orthodox view, which accepts that an ecumenical council is itself infallible when pronouncing on a specific matter" Wiki Pedia

An still no Uniity in the Upper Room.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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.

Sure. First, those are not your words. You copied them from either the CCC or a Catholic website. Most Orthodox, like the ones participating in this thread, believe infallibility means the pope is a psuedo-nazi who wants to get them in a choke hold and strangle them.

Second, the doctrine is directly from Scripture. See John 16:13.

Third, my point is a couple of questions. What is the Orthodox problem with the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to the truth?

How does the Orthodox position that the popes are autocrats to whom you must submit, as several have charged in this very debate, square with the doctrine as recognized by you?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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?

In a sense you’re right. There is no official count I’m aware of which tells us how many elements of doctrine have been infallibly defined. We know of the last two – the Immaculate Conception the the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The Church usually defined doctrine infallibly only when it was forced to, i.e., when doctrine was challenged to the point where the faithful were in confusion or the danger of confusion is imminent.

I dont’ agree it isn’t a central tenet of the faith. It was solemnly proclaimed because Martin Luther challenged the authority of the Pope, and in so doing, the authority of the Church to declare true doctrine. Millions followed him into heresy. The Church had no choice at the time. The VI statements were affirmations of the declarations of Trent. The language of both is offensive to non-Catholics because of their strident tone, but the doctrines are biblically sound.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

So it seems that the Fathers understood the “singling out” of St. Peter to be a means by which he was restored to apostleship in light of his great error in denying Christ. St. Cyril does call him “the foremost”, but in context of the sermon it would be incredibly ridiculous to assert that this shows that St. Peter’s successors in Rome have temporal power or final say over any others, when St. Cyril repeats over and over that such an ambitious idea is unprofitable and not fitting the apostles’ mission (and if St. Cyril says this of the apostles, I very much doubt he would change his tune for any modern patriarch, whether in Rome or anywhere else).

St. Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, was dealing with Nestorius at the time and some of his sentiments may have been directed to him. If St. Cyril agrees with you, why did he appeal to Pope Celestine for guidance on the Nestorian controversy? Why did he wait for the Pope’s decision before going to Constant(name removed by moderator)ole? Why, at the Council, did he rely on the Pope’s authority and not his own? Those are questions worth considering.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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.

You’re right. Being distracted by off-topic argument, I overlooked it. See the Nestorian controversy and St. Cyril of Alexandria’s ‘submission’ to Pope Celestine as explained in my previous message. I don’t call it ‘submission,’ which is clearly an Orthodox pejorative. I consider it the proper, doctrinal deference to the authority of the Holy Spirit, whose servant the pope is.

 

[BVMFatima]

The Church was one, but the Oriental Orthodox rejected the council of chalcedon. About a few centuries later, in the Byzantine East the emperor of Constantiople elected a heretical man as patriarch who believed in Iconoclasm, rejection of the papacy due to the filioque etc. (The filioque was added due to Gnostics misinterpreting the Creed)

Throughout the years, the West and East had many disagreements due to the different cultures and theology etc. Hopefully one day we will reunite.

 

[steve_b]

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.

The point I responded to was from

: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.

So I responded directly to that. I’m not talking about individuals here and there who switch allegiance, I’m talking about an entire Church that changed direction…as Bp John who I linked to, showed and explained beautifully

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, I saw ConstantineTG’s post. But I would point out that he didn’t say “No Eastern Church has ever submitted to Rome’s administration.” (If he had said that, then what would be in order is not so much a response but rather a good slap to bring him to his senses. )

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

It seems that on this thread, the Orthodox say no and the Catholics say yes. Just want to say: I’ve seen a lot of evidence by the Catholics on this thread that shows that yes the Orthodox acknowledge the Pope’s Authority at one point, people just don’t want to acknowledge that evidence - I am seeing that the people on this thread both Catholics and Orthodox agree on that the Church was once united. So lets tackle one issue I am seeing pop up, who left who? The Catholics are saying the Orthodox left and the Orthodox are saying the Catholics left. Here is what I am saying: Sadly we separated from each other because of groups on both sides.

Another thing I want to give my opinion on is the Pope and how I view him as the Head of the Church. - For any of those who were in the military, are from military families or familiar with the military will more than likely understand this. - In the military you will have people of the same rank but have a different position that puts them above another person of the same rank for example: You can have 3 four star Generals, one is in charge of intel, the other logistics and the other in charge of both. You render the same honor to all three(Salute, call them Sir and so on) but one has more responsibilities and will have special honor shown to him. My view of the is kinda like that, the Pope is a bishop in charge of bishops. Also the Orthodox acknowledge the Pope as a first among equals but only in honor not jurisdiction.

Just my :twocents:

 

[dzheremi]

St. Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, was dealing with Nestorius at the time and some of his sentiments may have been directed to him.

Sure, but if you read his homilies on Luke, it’s pretty clear that they are lessons that apply to everybody.

If St. Cyril agrees with you, why did he appeal to Pope Celestine for guidance on the Nestorian controversy?

What exactly are you referring to here? If you are referring to Ephesus, it is important to remember that Nestorius had appealed to Pope Celestine himself, hoping that Celestine would take his side against St. Cyril in their ongoing conflict. In that context, doesn’t it make sense that St. Cyril would also go to Celestine, hoping for the opposite outcome? You must remember that these were three patriarchs in dispute; it was not as though St. Cyril was a layperson, appealing to some imagined “Papal authority” that he himself would not have also had (and, after all, he presided over the council in question). In fact, if we read the letter of the council sent to the Roman Pope (who, of course, did not attend), which we can do here, there is by no means a clear sense of the Roman Pope being any sort of final, deciding authority over such matters. The letter makes the point that the condemnation of Nestorius and those in his camp is arrived at by consensus, and the Council wishes to inform the Roman Pope of that the goings on of the synod and to add HH’s consensus to it: “When there had been read in the holy Synod what had been done touching the deposition of the most irreligious Pelagiansand Coelestines, of Coelestius, and Pelagius,and Julian, and Praesidius, and Florus, and Marcellian, and Orontius, and those inclined to like errors, we also deemed it right that the determinations of your holiness concerning them should stand strong and firm. And we all were of the same mind, holding them deposed. And that you may know in full all things that have been done, we have sent you a copy of the Acts, and of the subscriptions of the Synod. We pray that you, dearly beloved and most longed for, may be strong and mindful of us in the Lord.”

Why did he wait for the Pope’s decision before going to Constant(name removed by moderator)ole?

Again, what exactly are you referring to? At the time of the Council of Constantinople, St. Cyril was between 3 and 6 years old (born c.375-378; council called 381)

Why, at the Council, did he rely on the Pope’s authority and not his own? Those are questions worth considering.

Again, what are you talking about?

Specifics, with appropriate citations of source material (as above), are needed before I can even tell what you’re asking me to consider.

 

[sharpag]

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 was under the impression Ecumenical Councils were considered to be infallible by the EO. Is it merely that the EO did not evolve to use the term infallible (and considers it a Western conception) or is the term used in terms of the totality of the EOC? Or am I just completely wrong?

 

[BVMFatima]

It seems that on this thread, the Orthodox say no and the Catholics say yes. Just want to say: I’ve seen a lot of evidence by the Catholics on this thread that shows that yes the Orthodox acknowledge the Pope’s Authority at one point, people just don’t want to acknowledge that evidence - I am seeing that the people on this thread both Catholics and Orthodox agree on that the Church was once united. So lets tackle one issue I am seeing pop up, who left who? The Catholics are saying the Orthodox left and the Orthodox are saying the Catholics left. Here is what I am saying: Sadly we separated from each other because of groups on both sides.

Another thing I want to give my opinion on is the Pope and how I view him as the Head of the Church. - For any of those who were in the military, are from military families or familiar with the military will more than likely understand this. - In the military you will have people of the same rank but have a different position that puts them above another person of the same rank for example: You can have 3 four star Generals, one is in charge of intel, the other logistics and the other in charge of both. You render the same honor to all three(Salute, call them Sir and so on) but one has more responsibilities and will have special honor shown to him. My view of the is kinda like that, the Pope is a bishop in charge of bishops. Also the Orthodox acknowledge the Pope as a first among equals but only in honor not jurisdiction.

Just my :twocents:

 

[BVMFatima]

Cyprian

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius*[Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

"The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him 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. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. 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 Church4 [A.D. 251]).*

 

[joe370]

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.

Understood. Since you seem to know, perhaps you could share with me a reliable source regarding the context of the dialogue between Leo and Dioscoros? Thanks.

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I thought I would ask: prior to the east - west schism, is there any evidence showing that the Eastern Churches (patriarchate), via letter, expected the leaders of Rome (patriarchate) to conform its practices to theirs?

 

[chimo]

It seems that on this thread, the Orthodox say no and the Catholics say yes. Just want to say: I’ve seen a lot of evidence by the Catholics on this thread that shows that yes the Orthodox acknowledge the Pope’s Authority at one point, people just don’t want to acknowledge that evidence - I am seeing that the people on this thread both Catholics and Orthodox agree on that the Church was once united. So lets tackle one issue I am seeing pop up, who left who? The Catholics are saying the Orthodox left and the Orthodox are saying the Catholics left. Here is what I am saying: Sadly we separated from each other because of groups on both sides.

Another thing I want to give my opinion on is the Pope and how I view him as the Head of the Church. - For any of those who were in the military, are from military families or familiar with the military will more than likely understand this. - In the military you will have people of the same rank but have a different position that puts them above another person of the same rank for example: You can have 3 four star Generals, one is in charge of intel, the other logistics and the other in charge of both. You render the same honor to all three(Salute, call them Sir and so on) but one has more responsibilities and will have special honor shown to him. My view of the is kinda like that, the Pope is a bishop in charge of bishops. Also the Orthodox acknowledge the Pope as a first among equals but only in honor not jurisdiction.

Just my :twocents:

I agree that the Holy Father to have this sort of position within the whole Church. However I don’t see this position as in the same manner of military but in service. Jesus stated the greatest of you must be the one who serves. He said this because even though He is the acting “admiral” He is the one who acts more as the one who serves that is He is willing to take “commands and orders” to serve better. This is my opinion of what the Office and Ministry of St. Peter upholds. It is therefore a ministry of service. That is what I believe the Eastern Orthodox will accept. And it may be coming to that. Definations and opinions are getting to that time when the Pope’s ministry will be more defined and acceptable to all the Church. Patience must be there for more understanding men and women to be able to arrive to the Pastoral authority which the Pope can give. It is coming.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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.

That is demonstrately not true. St. Ignatius used ‘Catholic’ as a proper noun in the early
2nd Century and St. Augustine used it as a proper noun throughout his writings.

"As regards 'Catholic,' its original meaning was 'universal' or 'general.'... Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from the heretical congregations."   Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly, p. 190.

My guess is Professor Kelly used the word ‘suggestion’ because he’s a Protestant and doesn’t want to geld his beliefs, but his scolarship and his understanding of history is impeccable.

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.

The Melkites, an Eastern Church arising from an ancient Apostolic See, and their understand of the authority of the Roman see and the Bishop of Rome is directly pertinent to this discussion. Simply asking what they have to do with anything, as if it’s a debating point, is not persuasive. Their acceptance of papal authority stands beside your denial of the same. I may as well ask, ‘What does Orthodox have to do with anything.’ The fact is, both are germane to the discussion.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

see Pope Leo’s infamous letter to Pope Dioscoros, which was ignored).

Could you post something about that? I’m not familiar with it and would like to know the partuculars from your POV. Thanks.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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

Right smack in middle of the bull’s eye! With Orthodox laity in the mix, there will never, ever be a reunion of our two Churches.

 

[joe370]

Sure. First, those are not your words. You copied them from either the CCC or a Catholic website. Most Orthodox, like the ones participating in this thread, believe infallibility means the pope is a psuedo-nazi who wants to get them in a choke hold and strangle them.

Second, the doctrine is directly from Scripture. See John 16:13.

Third, my point is a couple of questions. What is the Orthodox problem with the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to the truth?

How does the Orthodox position that the popes are autocrats to whom you must submit, as several have charged in this very debate, square with the doctrine as recognized by you?

I believe that the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches, in terms of the teaching office of each respective church, believes that said Eastern Orthodox Churches, as a whole, are infallibly and ineffably guided by the Holy Spirit. I think; could be wrong.