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

[Peter_J]

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…

I don’t know if that’s what Ferde Rombola meant; however, I do recall another thread (don’t ask me which one) in which someone said that he/she wouldn’t have any qualms about presenting himself/herself to an Orthodox priest for communion, and receiving if the priest didn’t actually ask him/her whether he/she were Orthodox. (Don’t ask me to repeat that.)

 

[GaryTaylor]

this entirely irrelevant point).:

What relevant point? That Alexandria could have done whatever they wanted? Dioscorus avoided attending two sessions since he wanted to do this his way. When summoned to attend, at first he said that he was willing to come, but his guards prevented him. After the council sent two more summonses, he made it clear that he refused to come?

wordiq.com/definition/Dioscurus_of_Alexandria

You have another version of history?

Don’t see anything relevant.

Well that’s what I’m talking about. The Bishop of Rome writes to the Bishop of Alexandria

Amen and politely, or is the context of the letter an issue?

All things like Rome? I think they were having a problem with Dioscious responding. Course I don’t want use a polemical sight and ruffle your feathers. You supply the sights and I’ll read them.

A letter survives addressed to him from Pope Leo the Great, who wrote on June 21, 445, that “it would be shocking to believe that St. Mark formed his rules for Alexandria otherwise than on the model of St. Peter” Indeed it would.

 

[joe370]

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.

That’s cool. Thanks for the feedback brother. BTW, I did not know that about Justinian. The great thing about CAF is: I am always learning…

 

[joe370]

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.

My limited research led me to believe the same thing…

 

[joe370]

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

Agreed.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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!

Two points. St. Cyril waited in Alexandria until he had the Pope’s letter in hand. That doesn’ necessarily mean you’re wrong, but coupled with the fact the return letter to the Pope from the Council indicating his determination was acted upon is instructive.

Also, I doubt the Pope would have authorized St. Cyril to take with him his (the Pope’s) authority if he thought Cyril would have been offended by it or thought it irrelevant.

The Pope couldn’t have supported Nestorius. His position was heresy and the Popes of Rome are prevented from heresy by the Holy Spirit. Everybody knows that.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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…

Thanks for the advice, but I think I’ll ignore it. I was raised Orthodox and there are no misleading or false pretenses. When I approach the Presence I make the Catholic sign of the Cross and the priest and acolytes see it. It’s up to the priest to lecture me, not you.

Are you suggesting it’s a sin for me to receive in an Orthodox church??

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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?

It means I have received multiple times at Orthodox Masses and never been questioned. Or sent to prison.

 

[dzheremi]

What relevant point?

Irrelevant, not relevant. Your point about St. Dioscoros being deposed in one place rather than another would seem to be rather irrelevant to what we had been discussing, which was the substance of St. Dioscoros’ deposition.

wordiq.com/definition/Dioscurus_of_Alexandria

You have another version of history?

Just the one that actually happened, based on primary source documents, not demonstrably biased and ignorant summaries (the Copts are “Jacobites”, according to your latest link, so you’ll have to excuse me if I refuse to take seriously some random website that can’t even keep its pejorative labels straight). According the acts of the council, which are available in complete translation of Greek and Latin originals in a three-volume set edited by Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, ‘Dioscorus was not deposed
on account of the faith; but because he broke off communion with the lord
Archbishop Leo and was summoned a third time but did not come, this is
why he was deposed’ (to quote Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, in response to the characterization of the chairman Paschasinus that St. Dioscoros was somehow heretical). So I am glad that you apparently now agree with the historical record that St. Dioscoros was not a heretic, but rather obstinate.

It should be pointed out that, as per Gaddis’ commentary, the ignoring of the summons’ was not necessarily unreasonable on principle (though obviously rather unwise, from a procedural standpoint):

“But although many of the bishops spoke as if such contempt led automatically to
the severe penalties of deposition and excommunication, it is clear that the
justice of condemnation on these grounds depended on the reasonableness of the issuing of the summonses, and that in turn depended on the seriousness and plausibility of the charges. Ignoring the summonses was a grave offence because it was taken to imply acknowledgement of guilt, not just because it constituted contempt of court. Compare the case of Bishop Athanasius of Perrhe, examined in Session XIV. He had first been tried and deposed at Hierapolis for ignoring a threefold summons (XIV. 76), but a fresh trial was allowed at Antioch, when he was again condemned after ignoring a threefold summons (XIV. 123–36); yet at Chalcedon the imperial representatives ordered a fresh retrial (XIV. 162): so ignoring a summons was not necessarily fatal for a defendant.” (Price & Gaddis, v.2:31-32; emphasis added)

The reasonableness of the charges is debatable due to their general vagueness and the context in which some of the alleged ‘crimes’ occurred. For example, footnote 8 from the previously noted citation contextualizes St. Dioscoros’ excommunication of Leo (one of the specific crimes listed by Paschasinus in the following fashion:

“Dioscorus declared Leo excommunicate while the bishops were gathering at Nicaea,
before the council moved to Chalcedon. Since Leo had excluded Dioscorus from commemoration in the liturgy months earlier (see ep. 80, ACO 2.4 pp. 38–40, 13 April 451), this might seem a less than outrageous quid pro quo. One may surmise that it was stimulated by the exertion of pressure on the bishops assembled at Nicaea to sign Leo’s Tome.”

Edit: I can’t seem to fix the formatting on the quoted portions (copied from a pdf), as they are properly justified in the reply screen, but obviously not so in the post (so I can’t see where to fix them). Apologies to all.

 

[AnthonyJ]

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

You could say you’re orthodox as well and technically would be correct.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Irrelevant, not relevant. Your point about St. Dioscoros being deposed in one place rather than another would seem to be rather irrelevant to what we had been discussing, which was the substance of St. Dioscoros’ deposition.

Just the one that actually happened, based on primary source documents, not demonstrably biased and ignorant summaries (the Copts are “Jacobites”, according to your latest link, so you’ll have to excuse me if I refuse to take seriously some random website that can’t even keep its pejorative labels straight). According the acts of the council, which are available in complete translation of Greek and Latin originals in a three-volume set edited by Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, ‘Dioscorus was not deposed
on account of the faith; but because he broke off communion with the lord
Archbishop Leo and was summoned a third time but did not come, this is
why he was deposed’ (to quote Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, in response to the characterization of the chairman Paschasinus that St. Dioscoros was somehow heretical). So I am glad that you apparently now agree with the historical record that St. Dioscoros was not a heretic, but rather obstinate.

It should be pointed out that, as per Gaddis’ commentary, the ignoring of the summons’ was not necessarily unreasonable on principle (though obviously rather unwise, from a procedural standpoint):

“But although many of the bishops spoke as if such contempt led automatically to
the severe penalties of deposition and excommunication, it is clear that the
justice of condemnation on these grounds depended on the reasonableness of the issuing of the summonses, and that in turn depended on the seriousness and plausibility of the charges. Ignoring the summonses was a grave offence because it was taken to imply acknowledgement of guilt, not just because it constituted contempt of court. Compare the case of Bishop Athanasius of Perrhe, examined in Session XIV. He had first been tried and deposed at Hierapolis for ignoring a threefold summons (XIV. 76), but a fresh trial was allowed at Antioch, when he was again condemned after ignoring a threefold summons (XIV. 123–36); yet at Chalcedon the imperial representatives ordered a fresh retrial (XIV. 162): so ignoring a summons was not necessarily fatal for a defendant.” (Price & Gaddis, v.2:31-32; emphasis added)

The reasonableness of the charges is debatable due to their general vagueness and the context in which some of the alleged ‘crimes’ occurred. For example, footnote 8 from the previously noted citation contextualizes St. Dioscoros’ excommunication of Leo (one of the specific crimes listed by Paschasinus in the following fashion:

“Dioscorus declared Leo excommunicate while the bishops were gathering at Nicaea,
before the council moved to Chalcedon. Since Leo had excluded Dioscorus from commemoration in the liturgy months earlier (see ep. 80, ACO 2.4 pp. 38–40, 13 April 451), this might seem a less than outrageous quid pro quo. One may surmise that it was stimulated by the exertion of pressure on the bishops assembled at Nicaea to sign Leo’s Tome.”

Edit: I can’t seem to fix the formatting on the quoted portions (copied from a pdf), as they are properly justified in the reply screen, but obviously not so in the post (so I can’t see where to fix them). Apologies to all.

Gaddis Commentary?

“John S. Romanides think that Dioscorus was deposed at Chalcedon in 451 not because of the faith, but for his grave administrative errors at the Robber Council of Ephesus (449), which included restoring Eutyches the heretic and the attack on Flavian, and because he (Dioscorus) had excommunicated Pope Leo I of Rome, and also because at Chalcedon he refused to appear in front of the Council although he was summoned to it three times”

Same thing William Jurgens states. I fail to see how no response equates to anything?

Here’s the Orthodox Wiki Pedia sight. They “all” can’t be wrong?

orthodoxwiki.org/Dioscorus_of_Alexandria

 

[dzheremi]

Two points. St. Cyril waited in Alexandria until he had the Pope’s letter in hand. That doesn’ necessarily mean you’re wrong, but coupled with the fact the return letter to the Pope from the Council indicating his determination was acted upon is instructive.

Instructive of the fact that consensus and support is sought, yes.

Also, I doubt the Pope would have authorized St. Cyril to take with him his (the Pope’s) authority if he thought Cyril would have been offended by it or thought it irrelevant.

Okay. I don’t know where I even implied that the Roman Pope’s authority is irrelevant or offensive. The question is not whether or not Rome’s bishop had authority or not, but of what exactly it entailed (i.e., whether or not he actually had the kinds of prerogatives he claimed/claims).

The Pope couldn’t have supported Nestorius. His position was heresy and the Popes of Rome are prevented from heresy by the Holy Spirit. Everybody knows that.

Ahhh…how quickly I’ve forgotten.

 

[GaryTaylor]

A] The Primacy of Rome always existed since divinely established.

B] obstinance, disobedience, misunderstanding, disbelief etc, is no reason to disregard A. In fact its a known and the issue.

My point 20 pages ago.

 

[dzheremi]

Are you suggesting it’s a sin for me to receive in an Orthodox church??

Not if the priest allows it. The post I replied to was ambiguous, as saying “I’m a catholic, like you, father” can be taken in several ways, hence the question. If the priest understands that you mean that you are in communion with Rome and still communes you, that is between him, his bishop, and God.

 

[dzheremi]

Gaddis Commentary?

Yes. The introductory commentary in the chapter on the trial of Dioscoros in vol. 2 of the translated acts of the Council of Chalcedon referenced in the post.

Same thing William Jurgens states.

Fair enough, but not the same thing that you had stated earlier (when you were calling Dioscoros a monophysite), which is what had gotten us into this discussion in the first place.

Here’s the Orthodox Wiki Pedia sight. They “all” can’t be wrong?

orthodoxwiki.org/Dioscorus_of_Alexandria

This is standard Chalcedonian stuff. What do you want from me in response to this?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Jer, they are calling him a heretic in the Orthodox link. I don’t know this man, I haven’t read his personal writings, were they destroyed? Whats available by him? I have Cyrils and understand the chain of events which transpired with him, Theodorat of Cyr etc. I haven’t seen the Dioscurus writings.

Here’s the thing with Leo though. This is where the Primacy takes a turn. Check this letter out and you’ll see the language change.

Pope Leo to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica 446-AD

"In regard to the manner to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, there decision was other than you wanted, then let the matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us.

Although Bishops have a common dignity, they are not all the same rank. Even among the most Blessed Apostles, though alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but is was given to one to be preeminent over the others. From this formality there arose also a distinction among Bishops, and by a great arrangement it was provided that NO ONE should arrogate everything to himself, but in individual provinces there should be individual Bishops whose opinion among their brothers should be first; and again, certain other established in larger cities, were to accept the greater responsibility. [no different than today]

Through them the care of the Universal Church would converge in the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head."

 

[dzheremi]

Jer, they are calling him a heretic in the Orthodox link.

As I wrote, what is presented there is standard Chalcedonian fare. I give it about as much weight as I would expect you to give any non-Chalcedonian writings condemning Pope Leo and anathematizing Chalcedon (hence I don’t present that here, as I’m not interested in condemning others, but in supporting a proper understanding of the saints of the Oriental Orthodox communion against unfounded and wrong charges of heresy).

I don’t know this man, I haven’t read his personal writings, were they destroyed?

Not destroyed, so much as not easy to come by. As of 2011, Fr. Peter Farrington of the British Orthodox Church has been working on a collection for the Oriental Orthodox Library, but until then, from what I can tell the best source is probably the Acts of Ephesus II (ed. Perry), which I do not own but which was recommended by the same Fr. Peter as the most complete translation (he did say to watch out for some polemical footnotes, though that’s from an OO perspective that you don’t share, so I guess it’d probably even better for you).

Here’s the thing with Leo though. This is where the Primacy takes a turn. Check this letter out and you’ll see the language change.

An interesting quote, for sure, and kind of par for the course for Leo, as far as I’ve read. I find the “one See of Peter” language to be especially curious. Did Rome never recognize Antioch as a Petrine See? I know the East definitely does (in addition to recognizing Rome).

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

You could say you’re orthodox as well and technically would be correct.

I’ll revise and extend my remark.

 

[joe370]

Chimo

Hey chimo. Could you give me your assessment of post 518?

Here is one more from Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria - 450 AD:

I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives.

Did the preeminence end with Peter? St. Cyril of Alexandria:

“They (the Apostles) strove to learn through one, that preeminent one, Peter.”

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Instructive of the fact that consensus and support is sought, yes.

Nice try, but support, presumed in this case, preceded the decision, which the evidence shows was based on the Pope’s determination, which is what both Nestorius and St. Cyril sought. There is no evidence either was taking a pulse. Both were making their case to the Vicar of Christ who they both understood had the authority and the ecclesial weight to advance their position. Everybody knows that.

Okay. I don’t know where I even implied that the Roman Pope’s authority is irrelevant or offensive. The question is not whether or not Rome’s bishop had authority or not, but of what exactly it entailed (i.e., whether or not he actually had the kinds of prerogatives he claimed/claims).

I didn’t say you implied the Pope’s authority was irrelevant. Here’s what I actually said:

“Also, I doubt the Pope would have authorized St. Cyril to take with him his (the Pope’s) authority if he thought Cyril would have been offended by it or thought it irrelevant.”

“If he thought Cyril would be offended by it, etc.” You’re not in the picture there. If you’d like to respond to what I actually said, feel free.

The ‘Roman Pope’ had exactly the authority Cyril and Nestorius appealed to and which moved the Council to its decision. That’s on the record.

Ahhh…how quickly I’ve forgotten.

Hey, it happens. How quickly I am to forgive.