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

[Maron_Ignatius]

Hi Maron_Ignatius. I realize you’re asking about Orthodox views, but I’d like to throw my 2 cents in anyhow. The way I see it, Western-Rite Orthodoxy can be uniatism but isn’t – or at least, hardly ever is. It has nearly always been a matter of Catholics and/or protestants individually converting to Orthodoxy.

On a side note, some Orthodox frame the question as “Is Western-rite Orthodoxy reverse Uniatism?” but that’s never really made sense to me. It’s like saying that if I punched you in the nose it would be a “reverse punch”, because a “punch” would be if you punched me in the nose.

Thanks Peter J, I just want to say I welcome others views and opinions. To be honest I’ve haven’t given much thought to Western-rite Orthodoxy, I actually just learned about Western-rite Orthodoxy. I guess would say my view is that it is a conversion to the Orthodox Church by Catholic and/or protestant individuals while maintaining the Latin identity(?)

I gotcha

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

I just want to apologize to anyone that I may have offended.

I received a warning on one of my post, the reason was on the usage of some of my wording. I did not mean in anyway for this post to be offensive and I never meant for the use of any of these words to be taken in a offensive manner. I am still pretty new to CAF and getting use to the guidelines, I will do my best to prevent this from happening again in the future. Thank you all for being understanding and for anyone that I might of offended, I am truly sorry!

 

[Peter_J]

I just want to apologize to anyone that I may have offended.

I received a warning on one of my post, the reason was on the usage of some of my wording. I did not mean in anyway for this post to be offensive and I never meant for the use of any of these words to be taken in a offensive manner. I am still pretty new to CAF and getting use to the guidelines, I will do my best to prevent this from happening again in the future. Thank you all for being understanding and for anyone that I might of offended, I am truly sorry!

Yeah, I wondered about that. While the word “uniatism” is considered acceptable (possibly you’ve read the joint statement “Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion”), there are certain related terms which are no longer considered acceptable (since Vatican II, more or less).

 

[Catherine_Grant]

**On the use of the words uniate, schismatic, and heretic
**Historically, the term Uniate was employed relatively freely by the Catholic Churches, including those of the East and Orient, as well as by the Orthodox Churches.

During a period in the 20th century, it took on a pejorative nature when it was perceived as being used sneeringly by some Orthodox (principally those of the Eastern, rather than the Oriental, Churches). As a result, the Eastern and Oriental Catholics ceased using the term in reference to themselves, particularly in America, where the majority of CAF’s posters reside.

In recent history, there has been some increase in the use of the term by Rome itself and by some Eastern and Oriental Catholics. The subject has been much discussed here in the past, expressing that a large segment of CAF’s Eastern and Oriental Catholics continue to view the term to be an offensive pejorative. As such, the abiding guideline wasa ban of the term uniate, along with heretic and schismatic (and their derivative forms), when they are used in a manner that smacks of them being confrontational, contemptuous, disparaging, inciteful, insulting, taunting, or worse.

Knowing the offense taken by many of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics who post here, and knowing the historical context for their concern, using the term uniate as a generic descriptor for Catholics of the Eastern and Oriental Churches who are in union with Rome is by nature confrontational and uncharitable and as such is not allowed. Likewise, the use of the terms schismatic or heretic may not be used as generic descriptors for any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox.

An example of acceptable usage of the terms is a direct quote of a third-party document which is otherwise pertinent to an ongoing discussion.** Care should be taken by all posters that their choice of words foster an environment in which it is possible to discuss, dialogue, dissent, and even debate without causing offense or acrimony between posters. **

Note that ascribing these terms to the faithful or to individual members of any of the Apostolic Churches is absolutely unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Please review our Charity guidelines first, and if you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact a forum moderator.

 

[steve_b]

A classic example of eisegesis (reading something into scripture that isn’t there). Christ never tells the apostles Peter is to lead them or rule them. In Luke he indicates Peter will have a leadership role in the early Church, which no one denies. That is far removed from the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Not to mention Acts 15 destroys any notion of Peter as “ruler” over the early Church, much less his successors.

I quoted the text I was referencing, I gave the Greek words in the text I was refering to, I gave their definition, so that everyone can verify everything I was referencing, and therefore can see that I neither added or subtracted anything to scripture, I didn’t read anything into scripture, and one can see that from the following post I stayed in the context

see this post

Therefore

• the charge of eisagesis doesn’t fit.
• The ECF’s support Peter’s universal role as leader I quoted 2 Eastern Fathers already Apharat and Ephrem which addresses the topic of the thread
• Acts 15 doesn’t deny Peter’s universal role. It shows that James was the bishop of Jerusalem, and James implemented what Peter said. In peoples fiction #1 about the pope Acts 15 is discussed. Fiction 1 - Peter was not the first Pope then in Fiction 2 about the pope people say- The Pope cannot be the Successor of Peter

 

[sharpag]

Maybe this question was already answered but can someone explain to me why Catholicism views the primacy of Rome to rest only on Peter. I can see how Rome was given primacy because of Peter and Paul but if primacy rests on Peter alone then why is it limited in scope so as not to include Antioch or Jerusalem? Maybe I am wrong and Catholics view primacy to rest on Peter and Paul but, in my opinion, this would seem to go against the concept of Peter alone, and not the other apostles, receiving the keys.

 

[hazcompat]

Maybe this question was already answered but can someone explain to me why Catholicism views the primacy of Rome to rest only on Peter. I can see how Rome was given primacy because of Peter and Paul but if primacy rests on Peter alone then why is it limited in scope so as not to include Antioch or Jerusalem? Maybe I am wrong and Catholics view primacy to rest on Peter and Paul but, in my opinion, this would seem to go against the concept of Peter alone, and not the other apostles, receiving the keys.

The Works of St. Optatus

St Optatus
66 THE CATHEDRA
The Cathedra?- we must see who was the first to sit on the Cathedra, and where he sat. If you do not know this, learn. If you do know, blush. Ignorance cannot be attributed to you it follows that you know. For one who knows, to err is sin. Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned. You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas ),

1 St. Cyprian was the first Father to use the term Cathedra (Chair). He applied it (as a word in common use at the time) to the See of Rome which he termed the Cathedra Petri. Parmenian, evidently, had claimed the Cathedra, stating that it belonged to him through the Angelus or Bishop (in other words We have valid Orders, and therefore we are in the Church ). St. Optatus replies to this in the text by making direct appeal to Rome. No man can possess a Cathedra, argues Optatus, who is not in communion with the one Cathedra, which, in all but successive sentences, he calls una Cathedra, singularis Cathedra and Cathedra unica.
THE CATHEDRA PETRI 67
that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all,

1 lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 2 would already be a schismatic and a sinner.

bear in mind that St. Cyprian was at this time the great authority

This perfectly plain doctrine of St. Optatus was never once challenged amongst Christians (the Albigenses were Manichees rather than Christians) until the days of Hus and Wycliffe, some nine hundred years later. We know that the work of St. Optatus was the great authority and handbook ofSt. Augustine in his arguments against the Donatists. He constantly echoes the teaching of St. Optatus, concerning the Chair of Peter, and, in his controversy with the Donatists, applied the famous promise Upon this Rock I will build my Church to this Holy See. Sedes Petri . . . ipsa est Petra (Ps. con. Donat. St. xiv).

Peace

 

[dzheremi]

Maybe this question was already answered but can someone explain to me why Catholicism views the primacy of Rome to rest only on Peter. I can see how Rome was given primacy because of Peter and Paul

According to Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, which was accepted by the rest of the church but resisted by Rome in particular, the primacy given to Rome does not rest on Peter at all:

“For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

“As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness”. Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the Canon 28 of Chalcedon).

“the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness.”

 

[sharpag]

This perfectly plain doctrine of St. Optatus was never once challenged amongst Christians (the Albigenses were Manichees rather than Christians) until the days of Hus and Wycliffe, some nine hundred years later. We know that the work of St. Optatus was the great authority and handbook ofSt. Augustine in his arguments against the Donatists. He constantly echoes the teaching of St. Optatus, concerning the Chair of Peter, and, in his controversy with the Donatists, applied the famous promise Upon this Rock I will build my Church to this Holy See. Sedes Petri . . . ipsa est Petra (Ps. con. Donat. St. xiv).

That address Petrine primacy but not Roman primacy (there is a difference).

“the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness.”

Even if I were to grant that canon 28 was not valid because it was not approved by the Roman pontiff, my question remains unanswered as to why Rome to the exclusion of the other sees of Peter. A patriarch deferring to Rome is also not a definitive example (especially when one considers the political and religious issues Anatolius was dealing with). I don’t mean to sound antagonistic but it seems that geopolitical factors lead to Rome alone claiming the primacy of Peter.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Petrine Doctrine

 

[hazcompat]

St. Cyprian was the first Father to use the term Cathedra (Chair). He applied it (as a word in common use at the time) to the See of Rome which he termed the Cathedra Petri.

Peace

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

Yeah, I wondered about that. While the word “uniatism” is considered acceptable (possibly you’ve read the joint statement “Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion”), there are certain related terms which are no longer considered acceptable (since Vatican II, more or less).

I have read “Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion” I actually have it bookmarked on my computer. And I’ve seen in a few writings by Eastern Catholics specifically of Byzantine Rite use the word “uniatism” in a fairly positive fashion. That is actually why I put the word “Unia” in quotation marks - I was going to with the word “uniatism” but I forgot to do that - because for some Eastern Catholics the words still has a pejorative meaning to it and others not so much.

And again I didn’t mean for it to be taken in that manner and for anyone I may have offended I am very sorry, you can imagine how embarrassed I am. I hope I didn’t offended you Peter.

 

[Hasire]

That address Petrine primacy but not Roman primacy (there is a difference).

BINGO

Rome and Peter aren’t interchangeable terms.

 

[GaryTaylor]

geopolitical factors lead to Rome alone claiming the primacy of Peter.

Disagee

“If so, Rome’s primacy can’t in any sense be permanent, as it is too connected to temporal affairs which are subject to change. If this is so, then it makes no sense for Eastern Orthodox theologians to continue to maintain that Rome has a primacy of honor. Is there a theological basis for a mere primacy of honor? If so, we can ask once more – why Rome? Why the See of Peter? What exactly is a primacy of honor? Does it mean getting to sit at the head of the table at official meetings?”

credo.stormloader.com/Reviews/deutsler.htm

St. Irenaeus of Lyons said of the Church of Rome:

“For with this church, by reason of its preeminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord” (Catechism, no. 834).

“if the Church is a universal organism, it must have as its head a universal bishop as the focus of its unity and as the organ of supreme power. Consequently, the model of ecclesiology makes imperative the necessity of universal primacy as divinely instituted for the essential being of the Church. This is the kind of ecclesiology which, together with other historical causes, gave birth to the image of papacy defined by Vatican I in 1870.”

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523

 

[dzheremi]

"If so, Rome’s primacy can’t in any sense be permanent

It’s not (if ‘primacy’ is to be understood in terms of submission, as is the topic of the OP), as events in 451 or 1054 (or 1204, or whatever date is most meaningful to you for the East-West “Great Schism”) show. Rome leaves the faith and the faithful leave Rome.

as it is too connected to temporal affairs which are subject to change. If this is so, then it makes no sense for Eastern Orthodox theologians to continue to maintain that Rome has a primacy of honor. Is there a theological basis for a mere primacy of honor? If so, we can ask once more – why Rome? Why the See of Peter? What exactly is a primacy of honor? Does it mean getting to sit at the head of the table at official meetings?

I’ll let canon 28 of Chalcedon, posted earlier, answer most of these. Yes, it does mean getting to sit at the head of the table at official meetings/synods. It also means intervening in disputes between archbishops (as other archbishops intervened in disputes between the Bishop of Rome and others; see: St. Dionysus of Alexandria’s letters to popes Stephen and Xystus regarding rebaptism).

“if the Church is a universal organism, it must have as its head a universal bishop as the focus of its unity and as the organ of supreme power. Consequently, the model of ecclesiology makes imperative the necessity of universal primacy as divinely instituted for the essential being of the Church. This is the kind of ecclesiology which, together with other historical causes, gave birth to the image of papacy defined by Vatican I in 1870.”

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523

Other interesting quotes at the above link:

“Today, scriptural scholars of all traditions agree that we can discern in the New Testament an early tradition which attributes a special position to Peter among Christ’s twelve apostles. The Church built its identity on them as witnesses, and responsibility for pastoral leadership was not restricted to Peter.[11] In Matthew 16:19, Peter is explicitly commissioned to “bind and loose”; later, in Matthew 18:18, Christ directly promises all the disciples that they will do the same. Similarly, the foundation upon which the Church is built is related to Peter in Matthew 16:16, and to the whole apostolic body elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 2:10). It is thus possible to conclude that, although the distinctive features of Peter’s ministry are stressed, his ministry is that of an apostle and does not distinguish him from the ministry of the other apostles. In addition, the New Testament does not contain an explicit record of the transmission of Peter’s leadership, nor is the transmission of apostolic authority in general, very clear.”

“it is difficult to justify ecclesiologically the juridical independence of the bishop of Rome from the college of bishops of which he is head. Does this juridical independence not lead to authoritarian abuses of the pope’s ecclesiastical power if and when he chooses? What administrative structure is necessary for the proper function of the primacy in the life of the Church? More significantly, what are the ecumenically accepted rights (of diakonia) and limits (of authority) of the bishop of Rome within a Communion of local churches who have been judged to be fully catholic? One of the most effective and normative means which the Church has for resolving the conflicts and debates which endanger its unity or threaten to distort its gospel is to appeal to the Tradition embodied in scripture, conciliar creeds, canons and patristic writings. Bishops in such situations have a special responsibility to safeguard the unity and the truth of the Church: it is their collective as well as individual responsibility to defend and interpret the apostolic faith in unity with all God’s people” (Hmmm…sounds like the dreaded “c-word”, consensus, to me! )

“We must understand the universal primacy of the Roman Church similarly. Based on Christian Tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of the church of Rome’s claims of universal primacy. Orthodox theology, however, objects to the identification of this primacy as “supreme power” transforming Rome into the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church itself.[41] The Church from the first days of its existence undeniably possessed an ecumenical centre of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and Judaeo‑Christian period this centre was first the church of Jerusalem and later the church of Rome ‑ “presiding in agape” according to St Ignatios of Antioch.[42] For the Orthodox, the essence and the purpose of this primacy is to express and preserve the unity of the Church in faith and life; to express and preserve the unanimity of all churches; to keep them from isolating themselves into ecclesiastical provincialism, losing the catholicity, separating themselves from the unity of life. It means ultimately to assume the care, the sollicitudo of the churches so that each one of them can abide in that fullness which is always the whole of the Catholic tradition and not any one “part” of it. The idea of primacy thus excludes the idea of jurisdiction but implies that of an “order” of Church which does not subordinate one church to another, but which makes it possible for all churches to live together this life of all in each and of each in all.” (emphasis added)

 

[steve_b]

Maybe this question was already answered but can someone explain to me why Catholicism views the primacy of Rome to rest only on Peter. I can see how Rome was given primacy because of Peter and Paul but if primacy rests on Peter alone then why is it limited in scope so as not to include Antioch or Jerusalem?

Peter was the head of the apostles, therefore, head of the Church. His see was Rome. He died in Rome.

Peter didn’t stay in Antioch. Peter went to Rome. This is not about where Peter was, it’s about where he is.

Here is the ancient ranking of sees (BC =before Constantinople) and (AC=after Constantinople) visually it tells it all

BC

1. 
   *]Rome
   *]Alexandria
   *]Antioch
   *]Jerusalem
   
   AC
   1. 
      *]Rome
      *]Constantinople
      *]Alexandria
      *]Antioch
      *]Jerusalem
      
      Notice, Rome is #1 and it doesn’t change, because it’s the chair of Peter. Antioch otoh moved from 3rd to 4th place. And Jerusalem moved from 4th place to 5th place. Obviously even in the East, they don’t put much stock in the fact Peter was once in Antioch.
      Unfortunately today, Christianity barely exists in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.
      s:
      

      Maybe I am wrong and Catholics view primacy to rest on Peter and Paul but, in my opinion, this would seem to go against the concept of Peter alone, and not the other apostles, receiving the keys.

      The keys come through Peter. That’s how Jesus set it up.
      
      This argument over authority and primacy took place among the apostles in the upper room. Jesus ended the argument, by saying again to them it’s Peter who would be the one to strengthen them. And He also told the apostles who was behind their argument. It was Satan sifting them like wheat. That sifting is still going on, witness the same argument over and over and over again.

 

[GaryTaylor]

canon 28 of Chalcedon

It did speak for a split second and then was rejected by what Authority? That which you suggest one doesn’t have?

The Primacy is “de-facto” how do you conclude its not permanent?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Which is to say this is precisely the point the EO/CC is at.

“First among equals is not the formula of Catholicism in belief. The Pope is the first and he also has specific functions and tasks. In this respect not everyone is equal.” Pope Benedict

How this is resolved remains a point of dialogue. As both Popes, Bl. JP-II and Benedict have stated they are willing to discuss.

 

[dzheremi]

It did speak for a split second and then was rejected by what Authority? That which you suggest one doesn’t have?

I do not understand what you are asking, Gary. Can you please rephrase your questions?

The Primacy is “de-facto” how do you conclude its not permanent?

“de-facto”? Not sure what you mean by using that term, Gary. As for it not being permanent, of course the deference paid to Rome (or any see or bishop) must necessarily be connected to its faith, right? We have not recited the name of the East Syrian/Nestorian Patriarch in the diptych in a loooong time, y’know. Similarly, your Pope Leo thought he was doing nothing less by excluding HH Pope St. Dioscoros from the diptych (prior to Chalcedon, for which St. Dioscoros returned the favor…a shade of foreshadowing 1054, no?), because that’s just the way that communion works, and primacy as well.

Should Rome one day return to her Orthodox faith (may God grant it), it is conceivable that the pre-schism state of Roman primacy (not supremacy, nor universal jurisdiction) would return with it, because of course in order for union to happen Rome would have to embrace Orthodox ecclesiology. As it is, the Primacy we speak of is a matter of affirming the historical reality of the place of Rome within the Pentarchy which of course as a matter of historical record does not change (we can’t, nor would we want to, go back and “un-affirm” it based on where Rome is now; in the view of the Orthodox, it is up to Rome to come back, as the Orthodox Church still holds to the earlier understanding).