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

[malphono]

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. …

Not to intrude on this conversation, but I don’t read it that way at all. From the tone of the correspondence, it strikes me that Cyril was actually bringing the matter to Celestine’s attention in order to forge a consensus with his fellow orthodox Patriarch. If it were otherwise:
(a) Cyril could have acted on his own, and perhaps have informed Celestine later, but instead he waited to hear from Celestine and
(b) Celestine could have acted on his own without regard to anything that Cyril had said, but instead convened a synod at Rome and sent his and the synod’s determination to Cyril.

OK, so much for my unsolicited :twocents: … and now back to our regularly scheduled posters already in progress.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

As an Eastern Orthodox I can offer some very general thoughts on this subject.

I have no disagreement with the Bishop of Rome having primacy among the bishops. Where I would disagree is that this would entail jurisdictional authority over the eastern churches. I would limit that authority to the right to ratify ecumenical councils, hear appeals, and serve as a spokesman (I would be open to discussing others). I would have to strongly disagree that he has the rights traditionally enumerated by Catholics as in the following article:

Without authority there is no primacy. I think most of what you object to in the link you provided would come under the right to hear appeals since most of them would cover controversies between contentious bishops. In the Orthodox Church, for example, the Pope would have the authority to tell the Partiarch of Moscow to keep his hands off Ukraine. I don’t thnk that’s going to happen any time soon.

Most of the remainder deal with the unity of the Church in several areas of possible contention.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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 …

If I may ask, what do you mean by “unyielding/ dogmatic / judgmental?”

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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?

If we don’t have faith in what we believe, the faith of anyone else isn’t going to help us.

 

[Peter_J]

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

What about when you get to the front of the line and the priest asks whether you are Orthodox?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not to intrude on this conversation, but I don’t read it that way at all. From the tone of the correspondence, it strikes me that Cyril was actually bringing the matter to Celestine’s attention in order to forge a consensus with his fellow orthodox Patriarch. If it were otherwise:
(a) Cyril could have acted on his own, and perhaps have informed Celestine later, but instead he waited to hear from Celestine and
(b) Celestine could have acted on his own without regard to anything that Cyril had said, but instead convened a synod at Rome and sent his and the synod’s determination to Cyril.

OK, so much for my unsolicited :twocents: … and now back to our regularly scheduled posters already in progress.

Nope can’t leave that easy. This is no different than the Council of Sardica (A.D. 344). While this doesn’t indicate the voice of the OP. It does follow with the Primacy in the spiritual sense.

The juridical aspect is yet to come in history.

Sure St Cyril could have done a and b. So could have James in Acts.

 

[malphono]

Nope can’t leave that easy. This is no different than the Council of Sardica (A.D. 344). While this doesn’t indicate the voice of the OP. It does follow with the Primacy in the spiritual sense.

Well yes … and it seems to me that’s why Cyril waited. Not to rehash this entire thread, but primacy is one thing. Submitting to a foreign authority is quite something else. I really don’t see that there is much of a valid argument against “primacy” in its true sense. There is, OTOH, insoluble argument about it in its post-1st millennium developed sense.

The judicial aspect is yet to come in history.

You mean Roman history, I guess?

Sure St Cyril could have done a and b.

Referencing my earlier post, Cyril could have done (a) but not (b).

So could have James in Acts.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well yes … and it seems to me that’s why Cyril waited. Not to rehash this entire thread, but primacy is one thing. Submitting to a foreign authority is quite something else. I really don’t see that there is much of a valid argument against “primacy” in its true sense. There is, OTOH, insoluble argument about it in its post-1st millennium developed sense.

Right were talking two aspects being the early church, then what took shape with Constantine, First and Second chair, etc. .

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s St Cyrils words…

“I was unwilling to openly sever communication with him until I had laid all the facts before you. Deign therefore to decree what seems right, whether we ought to communicate at all with him, or to tell him plainly that no one communicates with a person who holds and teaches as he does.”

Ep. 11, 7, To Celestine (PG 77, 84): Ου̉ πρότερον δέ τη̃ς πρός αυ̉τόν κοινωνίας ε̉κβάλλομεν εαυτούς μετά παρρησίας, πρίν ά̉ν ταυ̃τα τη̃ ση̃ θεοσεβεία α̉νακοινωσώμεθα. Διό δή καταξίωσον τυπω̃σαι τό δοκου̃ν, καί πότερόν ποτε χρή κοινωνει̃ν αυ̉τω̃, ή̉ λοιπόν α̉πειπει̃ν μετά παρρησίας, οτι τοιαυ̃τα φρονου̃ντι και διδάσκοντι ου̉δείς κοινωνει̃. Fr Hardin Lambeth

 

[dzheremi]

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

What on earth are you talking about? You asserted the St. Dioscoros was a monophysite, so I posted the translation of the actual condemnation as it was read at the Council of Chalcedon by which he was deposed to show that this was not a charge against him according to the historical record.

As for the site I posted being “rooted exclusively in Schaff”, let me get this straight: I can’t provide a link that translates a primary source document that shows what the Council actually convicted St. Dioscoros of, but you can rely on a heavily polemical description that translates no primary source document, and calls the non-Chalcedonian bishops of Antioch and Constantinople “creatures” and all kinds of other garbage? Such double standards are disgusting. Please find a competing translation of the acts of the council that shows that Schaff has mistranslated the relevant portion (and St. Dioscoros was actually condemned for his faith), or do not respond to me. What you are doing now is not cutting it, in terms of being an actual dialogue.

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.

Did you read the actual letter, Gary? What in it strikes you as being a defense of the deposit of faith? It seems to be saying: Alexandria should follow Rome’s ways; priests should be ordained on Saturday nights; and, more than one liturgy should be celebrated in a day. I’m not sure why these are matters of the “deposit of faith” to you, but I’d like to hear why you believe it is so, particularly in light of the fact that the Eastern Chalcedonians adhere to the tradition of one liturgy per priest per day, and certainly hence did not conform themselves to Roman practice in all things, but the two had no trouble being in communion for another 600 years or so after the time of Pope Leo.

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

How is this a response to what I’ve written? I’m not arguing against your belief that the Roman Church shows an unbroken line from St. Ignatius forward. I’m arguing for the Eastern Patriarchs’ right to run their own churches according to their own traditions, rather than being pressured or forced to conform their practices to those of Rome just because Rome says they should. I would think this argument would be better received on this particular board, seeing as how it is often made by Eastern Catholics as well, and does not in any way denigrate the Church of Rome or its faith.

Sure they should and were.

If they were, why did Leo write the letter?

 

[dzheremi]

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

Seeing as how I brought up the letter, I feel qualified to say no, no it doesn’t. We’re not debating primacy here. We in the Coptic Orthodox Church, like all the Orthodox churches, affirm the primacy of Rome in the ancient Pentarchy, and indeed even more so the primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. So, no, that’s not what we’re discussing. What I mean to show by the letter is that the tradition of the Roman Pope asserting authority over other sees that is not heeded or recognized by the Patriarchs of those sees is very old, so merely finding another very old letter or document that seems to show a Roman Pope doing that is not good enough to show that the modern understanding of the Roman Papacy is in keeping with the first millennium understanding of the same.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I didn’t assert anything the sights and books did. Sorry you don’t care for the sights. I used Fr Hardins on the Papacy, Early Church Fathers V-III by William Jurgens, and New Advent before I posted Jurgens words.

No one is talking about pressure to conform.

 

[BVMFatima]

Neither do I.

Same!

 

[GaryTaylor]

the modern understanding

Oh I agree as I said this history continues to develop.

 

[dzheremi]

I didn’t assert anything the sights and books did. Sorry you don’t care for the sights. I used Fr Hardins on the Papacy, Early Church Fathers V-III by William Jurgens, and New Advent before I posted Jurgens words.

And I used a translation of the primary source (the acts of the council itself). It’s not that I don’t like the sites (what I like or don’t like is not the issue; my point was that we seemed to be talking about two different things, since I wrote that St. Disocoros was not facing a charge of monophysitism at Chalcedon, and you responded that he was deposed at Alexandria, and listed a heavily polemical and insulting document that was in no way a translation of a primary source to make this entirely irrelevant point).

No one is talking about pressure to conform.

Well that’s what I’m talking about. The Bishop of Rome writes to the Bishop of Alexandria saying “You should do as we do”. That’s pressure to conform to Roman ways (as, indeed, Rome was given a place of honor, so the words of Leo are not frivolous, as unnecessary as we on the Alexandrian side apparently found them to be in this case), and Alexandria did not do so. That’s the point of bringing up the letter in the first place. Rome wanted something to happen and appealed to some authority Leo thought he had, and he found out that his suggestions were apparently not enough to make Alexandria like Rome in all things. That’s how this episode relates to the OP.

I feel like we’re having two separate conversations here.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Not to intrude on this conversation, but I don’t read it that way at all. From the tone of the correspondence, it strikes me that Cyril was actually bringing the matter to Celestine’s attention in order to forge a consensus with his fellow orthodox Patriarch. If it were otherwise:
(a) Cyril could have acted on his own, and perhaps have informed Celestine later, but instead he waited to hear from Celestine and
(b) Celestine could have acted on his own without regard to anything that Cyril had said, but instead convened a synod at Rome and sent his and the synod’s determination to Cyril.

OK, so much for my unsolicited :twocents: … and now back to our regularly scheduled posters already in progress.

This is an open forum and you’re welcome to join in at any time.

It’s conjecture to a point, but I think there are elements to the correspondence which clarify the impetus of both sides.

“Cyril could have acted on his own.” He did. He wrote to the Pope after he and Nestorius had been duking it out for some time and he saw he wasn’t getting anywhere Further, Nestorius was getting some support from others in the East and Cyril might have (more conjecture) decided it was prudent to get the heavy artillary involved before things got out of hand.

“Celestine could have acted on his own…” I think he wasn’t aware of the controversy until the principles wrote to him. Acting on his own after that would have been a major slight to St. Cyril, which the Pope never would do since he fully appreciated the standing of the See of Alexandria and of St. Cyril himself. Popes don’t lord it over their brothers.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

What about when you get to the front of the line and the priest asks whether you are Orthodox?

It hasn’t happened yet, bro. If it ever did, I’d say, ‘Like you, Father, I’m a Catholic.’

 

[dzheremi]

I agree with Malphono’s interpretation. As I wrote before in my own comments on the letter, they were looking for support, for consensus, etc., as is right to seek among bishops. I don’t think anyone here (or anywhere) denies that the Roman Pope’s support would’ve been a great boon to either side…though, had he sided with Nestorius…boy, that would’ve made for some interesting history!

 

[dzheremi]

It hasn’t happened yet, bro. If it ever did, I’d say, ‘Like you, Father, I’m a Catholic.’

Are you admitting here to have taken the Eucharist in Orthodox Church under false or misleading pretenses? I’m pretty sure that’s against Rome’s regulations, as well. You should probably talk to your priest, if that’s the case…preferably in confession…

 

[Peter_J]

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

What about when you get to the front of the line and the priest asks whether you are Orthodox?

It hasn’t happened yet, bro. If it ever did, I’d say, ‘Like you, Father, I’m a Catholic.’

By “It hasn’t happened yet, bro” do you mean that you haven’t tried to receive communion from an Orthodox priest, or that you *have *tried and he didn’t ask you whether you were Orthodox?