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

[Peter_J]

brb3, are you in agreement with the Eastern Patriarchs concerning Peter’s Primacy?

Also, I notice your profile says “catholic” but could you clarify: in what sense do you mean that?

 

[joe370]

dzheremi;10222068]I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

Nothing…

Yes, as it was to St. Dioscoros that the letter was written. The opening salutation reads “Leo, the bishop, to Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, greeting”.

 

[joe370]

.

Just trying to stay on topic. However, I do think that the word submit is a bit much.

Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation …the new heresy. (Sophronius, [quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council]
, Mansi, 893)

This seems to suggest that Rome played a major role in terms of quashing heresy; it seems to be suggesting that Rome is the place where the foundations of the orthodox doctrine can be found; not that I am implying that any one bishop is submitting to another.

Just throwing some quotes out there from non-Roman leaders:

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for ‘Peter,’ saith He, ‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’ And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority …And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with **respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine.
**

This seems a little compelling in terms of Peter being the head of the church. Perhaps it ended with him,but it doesn’t seem likely or logical. Why have a visible head of the church for one generation?

Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)
St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516)

Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.’ (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

Why is the Pope of Rome need to preside…?

 

[brb3]

brb3, are you in agreement with the Eastern Patriarchs concerning Peter’s Primacy?

Also, I notice your profile says “catholic” but could you clarify: in what sense do you mean that?

Roman Catholic…but, not 100% in. I’m have concerns & am exploring the Eastern understanding. I think history better supports the West, as so many ECF’s testify to Rome’s authority. But, in some ways the West can be so unyielding/ dogmatic / judgmental … and Christ repeatedly warned the Scribes/Pharisees not to be.
The Eastern faith seems more Spiritual and less judgmental, and teaches theosis more.

I think if the two reunited, we would bring the best of both Churches together again …and we would be closer to that ONE CHURCH Christ desires.

 

[joe370]

dzheremi

This seems rather compelling.

Letter to the Pope:

Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

Emperor Justinian

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Im very happy to read these quotes but are all these ‘quotes’ the only things that keep and help us to believe in and stay Catholic?

 

[joe370]

Im very happy to read these quotes but are all these ‘quotes’ the only things that keep and help us to believe in and stay Catholic?

No. Attempting to respond to the OP:

“Did the Orthodox Churches ever submit to the Pope’s Authority?”

The thread is not about the things that keep and help us to believe in and stay Catholic.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

If i was a moderator i wouldve shut this thread long before any off topic post

 

[Paul_theApostle]

No. Attempting to respond to the OP:

“Did the Orthodox Churches ever submit to the Pope’s Authority?”

The thread is not about the things that keep and help us to believe in and stay Catholic.

Your right ,for a minute i just took ur post as an attack

it has nothing to do with the OP but seeing all the quotes and seeing how it is helping me confirm my beliefs in the CC i threw the question in

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

that’s not why he was deposed at Chalcedon…

Dioscurus was disposed at Alexandria, monophysite succeded, first Timothy Aerulus, then Peter the Stammerer. Also in Jerusalum Theodore and Fullo. Within 100-years of seperation from Rome the whole Coptic Church, Ethiopian and Armenian and aspects of the Syrian Church remain monophysite… [At least in name]. [Faith of Early Church Fathers Volume III PG 268 Jurgens]

If the books are wrong that’s another matter. Perhaps a little more prudence and circumspection would have made these matters clear on Leos part, however, he was busy with Attila the Hun, and the Vandals outside, schism and heresy inside.

I think the fact that they were not, either before or after the letter, “like Rome in all things” says a lot more than the wishful prose of Leo. Sure, he (or anyone) can write whatever he wants

The only one disregarded here ironically is the Bishop of Rome. And “all thing like Rome” You mean the very long history of claims by Rome repeated by Leo above and continued from Ignatius of Antioch though till today? The continuity “cannot” be missed in history, and its not an authority claim which fuels this, its spiritual as it was with Ignatius. Or are you saying all things like Rome, should disregard the Hypostatic Union to be more like “all things like the OO”

Sorry it cannot be missed or dismissed another area which needs to be clearly defined as it has been with the EO and CC.

Chalcedon was intended to repair the Robber Council and it did very clearly condemn both Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Unfortunately a misapprehension grew in the East, that Chalcedon contradicted Ephesus 431 [the Tomb condemned the Christology of St. Cyril] Neither “supposed” fact was true. And here we are.

 

[dzheremi]

Dioscurus was disposed at Alexandria, monophysite succeded, first Timothy Aerulus, then Peter the Stammerer. Also in Jerusalum Theodore and Fullo. Within 100-years of seperation from Rome the whole Coptic Church, Ethiopian and Armenian and aspects of the Syrian Church remain monophysite… [At least in name]. [Faith of Early Church Fathers Volume III PG 268 Jurgens]

You’re displaying a rare lack of insight, Gary. The text of the condemnation of St. Dioscoros is available here, and mentions only in specific that he did not present himself to answer charges after being called three times (he was under house arrest and therefore was prevented from attending, but I digress). Nothing about “monophysitism” in there, you see, so I’ll thank you not to condemn St. Dioscoros for something that the fathers of the Council themselves did not condemn him for.

The only one disregarded here ironically is the Bishop of Rome.

How is that ironic? It is entirely with any Oriental/Eastern patriarch’s right to not follow Rome’s lead in things that Rome has no business inserting itself into, such as how we run our churches. That was true in 445, and it’s true now.

And “all thing like Rome” You mean the very long history of claims by Rome repeated by Leo above and continued from Ignatius of Antioch though till today?

I mean that the subheading for the opening section of the letter in the link provided is “The churches of Rome and Alexandria should be at one in everything.”

The continuity “cannot” be missed in history, and its not an authority claim which fuels this, its spiritual as it was with Ignatius. Or are you saying all things like Rome, should disregard the Hypostatic Union to be more like “all things like the OO”

Gary, you’re pushing my buttons here. I don’t know if you realize how offensive what you’re posting is to a non-Chalcedonian, and what a perversion it is of our sacred faith. Out of respect for where I am posting (and, moreover, because we are to deal with such things in a level-headed and caring manner), I will not respond in kind, but I likewise do not see how this line that you are pursuing is fruitful for anyone here. You clearly do not understand OO Christology or theology if you are trying to tie it to a rejection of supposed Roman Papal authority, but this is of no matter, as it is enough I hope to point out that even those who accepted the Tome of Leo did so after much examination and discussion in order to determine its orthodoxy. It was not accepted by the pro-Chalcedonian Easterners by virtue of being drafted by a Roman Pope. So you’re way, way off base here, my friend.

Sorry it cannot be missed or dismissed another area which needs to be clearly defined as it has been with the EO and CC.

St. Cyril’s Christology is clearly defined.

 

[dzheremi]

General response to Joe370:

I’m sorry, my friend, for accidentally letting your posts get buried (I don’t know if there’s a function here that will take me to the newest reply that I haven’t seen, rather than the latest reply in the thread, but that’d be useful at times like this one). I’m afraid I am headed off to bed now. I can make a few general comments first, however:

With the exception of St. John Chrysostom (who says nothing that I would disagree with in the passage you quoted), all the quotes presented come from post-Chalcedonian saints of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic communions (and one Chalcedonian emperor). I’m not pointing this out to say that they’re bad or not worthy of being listened to or whatever, but because the relation between the emperor and the Church was somewhat different for the Chalcedonians than it was for the non-Chalcedonians, as the Chalcedonians were considered as loyal to the imperial definition of Christianity (see the origins of the term “Melkite” for some interesting history regarding this). So in light of that, some of what is presented is not very surprising. Did you know, for instance, that Justinian was the last Roman Emperor to actually speak Latin natively? His ties to the then-fallen Western Roman Empire (and dreams of reviving it) were well-known, so I don’t think it is too far fetched to hypothesize that this might have had an effect on his language (the East is known for flowery language, anyway; we do it too, in the Coptic Church…our Pope is also “judge of the universe” ).

So, really, without wanting to dodge your very good comments and citations, I think they would be better put to someone who is EO, and hence probably understands their context better than I do and hence can explain what they do or do not mean.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The text of the condemnation of St. Dioscoros is available here, and mentions only in specific that he did not present himself to answer charges after being called three times (he was under house arrest and therefore was prevented from attending, but I digress). Nothing about “monophysitism” in there, you see, so I’ll thank you not to condemn St. Dioscoros for something that the fathers of the Council themselves did not condemn him for…

That Dioscurus was disposed in Alexandria? And that text is available here also. The sight is Evangelical above in that it is rooted exclusively in Schaff but again.

newadvent.org/cathen/05019a.htm

How is that ironic? It is entirely with any Oriental/Eastern patriarch’s right to not follow Rome’s lead in things that Rome has no business inserting itself into, such as how we run our churches. That was true in 445, and it’s true now. .

Actually it does have the right to defend the Deposit of Faith. And it wouldn’t be any different the opposite way around. Sorry I disagree.

Its entirely within the right for anyone not to follow the Church at all. Still doesn’t distract from the continuity from Ignatius forward.

I mean that the subheading for the opening section of the letter in the link provided is “The churches of Rome and Alexandria should be at one in everything.” .

Sure they should and were. My contention is there was haste judgement by Leo.

if you are trying to tie it to a rejection of supposed Roman Papal authority.

I’m placing the letter in question in context/content and the state of mind of the Pope is clear as stated. Who rejects what has no bearing on this point. And we have yet to determine why this was rejected as we see above.

No ones faith is questioned . We have different sets of documented information as above.

.St Cyril’s Christology is clearly defined.

No one questioned this, still the Hypostatic Union between the EO/CC and OO is not clearly defined. Semantics imho between Miaphysitism and the doctrine of Hypostatic Union of the CC/EO. Nevertheless it creates uncertainly and needs clarification.

 

[Father_Marco]

Gracious God,
We pray for peace in our communities this day.
We commit to you all who work for peace and an end to tensions,
And those who work to uphold law and justice.
We pray for an end to fear,
For comfort and support to those who suffer.
For calm in our streets and cities,
That people may go about their lives in safety and peace.
In your mercy, hear our prayers,
now and always. Amen

churchofengland.org/

Prayer for help to you, child of God, with your help to continue the mission the Lord.
paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=WESLX8F77AX3L

Be blessed.

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks.

Before addressing what you said, a follow-up question to my last one: are you in the process of joining the Catholic Church?

Roman Catholic…but, not 100% in. I’m have concerns & am exploring the Eastern understanding. I think history better supports the West, as so many ECF’s testify to Rome’s authority. But, in some ways the West can be so unyielding/ dogmatic / judgmental … and Christ repeatedly warned the Scribes/Pharisees not to be.
The Eastern faith seems more Spiritual and less judgmental, and teaches theosis more.

I think if the two reunited, we would bring the best of both Churches together again …and we would be closer to that ONE CHURCH Christ desires.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The dispute centers around an “assumption” that Quote-[Alexandria ignored the letter] and this should somehow be taken to invalidate the primacy.

Lets back this up then.

The beginning of Nestorianism and the theological quarrel that has left a very distinct mark on all subsequent Christianity even to today date to as early as 429-AD.

Nestorius preached that Mary could not be called Theotokos or Mother of God but “CHRISTOTOKOS” from here stems the term “Christology”.

This was challenged by Eusebuis soon to be Bishop of Dorylaeum, who proposed on the doors of the Hagia Sophia a rebuttal accusing Nestorius of fostering the “Adoptionism” of Paul of Samoata.

Eusebuis sent copies of Nestorius sermons to Pope Celestine[we know why as first chair] thus and explanation of the teaching and what he meant by “Christotokos”.

Shortly after St Cyril sent a letter to Nestorius warning him of the heretical implications.

Shortly after St Cyril sent an account of the dispute,and a denunciation of Nestorius to Pope Celestine[again being the First Chair] [Jurgens pg 202 Volume III]

[Thus the idea of not responding to Rome, as we see in light of just these facts is questionable in itself.] As we see Alexandria did in fact present this case to the Bishop of Rome.

Course this aspect of the Church becomes more complex and would need a separate thread. Nevertheless this does address the above notion.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

At some point (I don’t know what point, off-hand) the discussion began to revolve around the question “Do any Eastern Churches submit to the Pope’s authority?”

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

What exactly are you referring to here? If you are referring to Ephesus,

I am, of course, and I apologize for the mistake.

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?

Not the way you state it. I doubt Cyril and Nestorius were informing each other of their actions. From the tenor of the correspondance, it seems a good bet to assume they were writing to the Pope independent of each other. In that context, it’s clear St. Cyril was asking the Pope to make a decision, which he did.

“St Cyril then wrote to Pope Celestine of Rome about the teaching of Nestorius. In 430, Pope Celestine called a council at Rome, which condemned Nestorius and called for him to be deposed. Pope Celestine sent copies of the council’s decision to St Cyril of Alexandria, who also called a council in Alexandria in 430.”
Orthodox Wiki

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).

St. Cyril was the Patriarch of Alexandria. There’s no question about that, and I think that fact, in the context of the evidence, shows a clear indication by St. Cyril that he believed the Pope had the authority to decide the matter, which he did.

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 from the Council was sent after the Pope’s letter to Cyril had been read to the Council and acted upon.

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.

That is from your citation and makes it clear to me whose determination carried the day.

Additional citation with my emphasis where appropriate:

"Nestorius sent his sermons to Pope Celestine, but he received no reply, for the latter wrote to St. Cyril for further information. Rome had taken the side of St. John Chrysostom against Theophilus, but had neither censured the orthodoxy of the latter, nor consented to the patriarchal powers exercised by the bishops of Constantinople. To St. Celestine Cyril was not only the first prelate of the East, he was also the inheritor of the traditions of Athanasius and Peter. The pope’s confidence was not misplaced…Cyril, though in this case Alexandria was in the right, does not act in his own name, but denounces Nestorius to St. Celestine, since ancient custom, he says, persuaded him to bring the matter before the pope. He relates all that had occurred, and begs Celestine to decree what he sees fit…and communicate it also to the Bishops of Macedonia and of the East (i.e. the Antiochene Patriarchate).

“The pope’s reply was of astonishing severity… He now summoned a council… and dispatched a letter to Alexandria with enclosures to Constantinople, Philippi, Jerusalem, and Antioch. ***Cyril is to take to himself the authority of the Roman See ***and to admonish Nestorius that unless he recants within ten days from the receipt of this ultimatum, he is separated from “our body” (the popes of the day had the habit of speaking of the other churches as the members, of which they are the head; the body is, of course the Catholic Church). If Nestorius does not submit, Cyril is to “provide for” the Church of Constantinople. Such a sentence of excommunication and deposition is not to be confounded with the mere withdrawal of actual communion by the popes from Cyril himself at an earlier date, from Theophilus, or, in Antioch, from Flavian or Meletius. It was the decree Cyril has asked for. As Cyril had twice written to Nestorius, his citation in the name of the pope is to be counted as a third warning, after which no grace is to be given.”
New Advent, St. Cyril of Alexandria, biography

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The church should focus on having times we can pray and worship together with the Orthodox, it would be like unity in a sense.

I see no reason why we cannot receive the Sacrament in each other’s churches right now!

 

[GaryTaylor]

I see no reason why we cannot receive the Sacrament in each other’s churches right now!

Neither do I.