M
- Status
T
twf
Guest
When reading your posts you often seem to speak in broad terms of Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church in such a way that it could apply to either the Eastern Orthodox or your own communion. Am I misreading, or do you view both bodies as being essentially “orthodox” (as opposed to the Latin Church). Or is it more that in these papal authority debates the two communions that claim the name Orthodox just happen to agree?
S
steve_b
Guest
Could you do me a favor.
Could you quote for me the first time “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing?
You realize, “pentarchy” was a development in the East. It was an attempt by the East to distribute authority away from Rome and put it equally between 5 heads. Isn’t that the same kind of argument that took place in the upper room, when the apostles were arguing over who was the greatest among THEM? Jesus settled their argument. He said it was Peter.
O
Orthodox_Bishop
Guest
It may have been answered in the argument that has been made above but I don’t get involved in arguments. Here are the facts.
There were 12 apostles, all holding equal power and authority. Peter, however, was always considered “First among equals.” NOT Supreme as he has become now.
The 12 would meet in council to decide matters of the church and its answers to questions, this is clearly seen in the scripture when the discussion of gentiles needing to be circumcised came up in the early church. Paul eventually came to Jerusalem and it was discussed with the apostles…TOGETHER, after argument (James wanting to keep the Jewish traditions and Peter and Paul and others not so much) they decided that circumcision was not a prerequisite for one to be a Christian.
Peter was NOT the founder of the church in Rome, Linus was already its leader (and some would argue BISHOP) when Peter arrived. Peter was honored for his primacy and Linus stepped aside until Peter was crucified and Linus was elected to succeed Peter again as Rome’s bishop. Peter was the founder of the church in Antioch which is why that church, to this day (ask a Maronite) uses the three bar Patriarchal Cross which is used by the Pope in Rome.
All the first seven ecumenical councils were a gathering of ALL the Apostolic successors and all decisions were decided on by ALL of the bishops. The Bishop of Rome was the Presiding Bishop of these councils as FIRST AMONG EQUALS.
The great Schism is a result of the Roman Pontiff officially changing the Creed by adding the words, “and the Son” to the line, "I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father AND THE SON…"when he was forced to do so by Charlemagne. Prior to this he had himself said that this addition, common in the Spanish and Germanic churches, was wrong and that the text could not be changed just because some priests thought it was right, it was the responsibility of the Council to decide this matter. When the words were officially uttered in The Vatican the Roman church changed the text of the Creed without the other 4 (Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria) having any say in the matter. The pope, under force by the civil leadership and for his own political survival, is the one that broke the tradition and “rules”.
In the east, the pope is still considered the successor of Peter and the First Among EQUALS. He is equal to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, Moscow, etc… but he does get a precedence as the Successor of Peter.
For 1040 years of the church, the pope was NOT the SUPREME leader of the church and he was NOT infallible. The COUNCIL was infallible (The pope and ALL the other bishops together). It wasn’t until the pope became a temporal leader as well as a spiritual leader that he took on the role of a monarch with supremacy (note the use of the Triple Tiara ) which, while the pope did wear a special head covering, came into use in the 1300s, well after the Schism.
So, in answer to the original question, “Did the Orthodox ever submit to the Pope’s Authority?” One might have to say NO. It submitted to the authority of its Patriarch and THE COUNCILS with a deference to the Primacy of the Roman Bishop as FIRST AMONG EQUALS. Rome itself, in general, didn’t try to impose itself on the eastern churches. For example, bishops were elected and validated locally, Rome had no say in who became a bishop in the eastern churches…nor is there any evidence that it tried to impose itself in those decision nor that it gave final approval of those elections and appointments. It was only in the late 900’s, when political and personal pride worked its way into the mix that these questions started to arise.
There were 12 apostles, all holding equal power and authority. Peter, however, was always considered “First among equals.” NOT Supreme as he has become now.
The 12 would meet in council to decide matters of the church and its answers to questions, this is clearly seen in the scripture when the discussion of gentiles needing to be circumcised came up in the early church. Paul eventually came to Jerusalem and it was discussed with the apostles…TOGETHER, after argument (James wanting to keep the Jewish traditions and Peter and Paul and others not so much) they decided that circumcision was not a prerequisite for one to be a Christian.
Peter was NOT the founder of the church in Rome, Linus was already its leader (and some would argue BISHOP) when Peter arrived. Peter was honored for his primacy and Linus stepped aside until Peter was crucified and Linus was elected to succeed Peter again as Rome’s bishop. Peter was the founder of the church in Antioch which is why that church, to this day (ask a Maronite) uses the three bar Patriarchal Cross which is used by the Pope in Rome.
All the first seven ecumenical councils were a gathering of ALL the Apostolic successors and all decisions were decided on by ALL of the bishops. The Bishop of Rome was the Presiding Bishop of these councils as FIRST AMONG EQUALS.
The great Schism is a result of the Roman Pontiff officially changing the Creed by adding the words, “and the Son” to the line, "I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father AND THE SON…"when he was forced to do so by Charlemagne. Prior to this he had himself said that this addition, common in the Spanish and Germanic churches, was wrong and that the text could not be changed just because some priests thought it was right, it was the responsibility of the Council to decide this matter. When the words were officially uttered in The Vatican the Roman church changed the text of the Creed without the other 4 (Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria) having any say in the matter. The pope, under force by the civil leadership and for his own political survival, is the one that broke the tradition and “rules”.
In the east, the pope is still considered the successor of Peter and the First Among EQUALS. He is equal to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, Moscow, etc… but he does get a precedence as the Successor of Peter.
For 1040 years of the church, the pope was NOT the SUPREME leader of the church and he was NOT infallible. The COUNCIL was infallible (The pope and ALL the other bishops together). It wasn’t until the pope became a temporal leader as well as a spiritual leader that he took on the role of a monarch with supremacy (note the use of the Triple Tiara ) which, while the pope did wear a special head covering, came into use in the 1300s, well after the Schism.
So, in answer to the original question, “Did the Orthodox ever submit to the Pope’s Authority?” One might have to say NO. It submitted to the authority of its Patriarch and THE COUNCILS with a deference to the Primacy of the Roman Bishop as FIRST AMONG EQUALS. Rome itself, in general, didn’t try to impose itself on the eastern churches. For example, bishops were elected and validated locally, Rome had no say in who became a bishop in the eastern churches…nor is there any evidence that it tried to impose itself in those decision nor that it gave final approval of those elections and appointments. It was only in the late 900’s, when political and personal pride worked its way into the mix that these questions started to arise.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I’m not sure how to respond to this. Obviously I believe my own communion is Orthodox. I don’t intend to represent the EO in any way, shape, or form; at the same time, to the extent that we agree, we agree. So I would take Mickey’s or other EOs responses to my posts as more of an answer to your last question than anything I write. As I’ve often written to RCs here, it is wrong to claim that we are the same in matters when both communions do not see it that way (whether we’re talking about EO/OO, EO/RC, RC/OO, etc.), and I think you can find a wide range of opinions as to the Orthodoxy of “the other side” in both EO and OO communions. I am purposely avoiding getting into that here, as it is not the topic of the thread and has no bearing on whatever agreement you might find among OO and EO on the topic of this thread (i.e., EO and OO can agree on this issue and many others and yet still not be in communion/not view each other as equally Orthodox).
Steve B: Not right now. I am cooking dinner and it is just about done. You can find that information, I’m sure, with a little digging. I’ll try to see what I can come up with after dinner, if you don’t get to it first.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t want to be difficult, but this is not historically accurate, though it’s widely believed. The Eastern churches didn’t adopt it, didn’t believe in it, but lived with it and didn’t make a major issue of it until the schism occurred for OTHER reasons. Then, and only then did the filioque become one (among other) things in which the Eastern churches declared the Catholic Church schismatic, heretical, etc. The anathemas were, of course, returned in kind.
Unfortunately, the other reasons are not terribly pretty from either’s standpoint, and I don’t want to step into that atomic landmine again. So I won’t.
H
Hasire
Guest
You realize, “Papal Supremacy” was a development in the West. It was an attempt by the West to take authority away from the Eastern bishops and put it 1 single heads. Isn’t that the same kind of argument that took place in the upper room, when the apostles were arguing over who was the beloved apostle? Jesus settled their argument. He said it was John.
S
steve_b
Guest
If one is first all aren’t equal, if all are equal one can’t be first.
Cardinal Kasper saw that with respect to the ROC compared to all the other smaller Orthodox Churches in general, and Constantionople in particular.
For example, Cardinal Kasper writes
“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”
http://www.zenit.org/article-3885?l=english
OB:
Here is what bishop John had to say.
*"*According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome."
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
"When we declared our union with Rome – in consistency with Apostolic tradition interrupted somehow by historical circumstances – we accepted the Catholic faith in its entirety… The Church teaches truth. If something is true, it would be absurd to say “Oh, we don’t believe that in the East.” This seems to be where we get short-circuited in ecumenical “dialogue.” All too frequently, such “dialogue” seems to presuppose a relativism where you speak “your truth” and I’ll speak “my truth” and we’ll just leave it at that. A sort of ecumenical schizophrenia."
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites
S
steve_b
Guest
[Lk 22:24-32] an argument broke out over who is the greatest among the apostles.You realize, “Papal Supremacy” was a development in the West. It was an attempt by the West to take authority away from the Eastern bishops and put it 1 single heads. Isn’t that the same kind of argument that took place in the upper room, when the apostles were arguing over who was the beloved apostle? Jesus settled their argument. *He said it was John. *
Who did Jesus commission, i.e. the one He names is the greatest among them…is it John? No. Is it Peter? Yes
Now to my 2nd question. When was the first time in writing, that “Orthodox Church” was written?
O
Orthodox_Bishop
Guest
I would concur that there was a lot of other stuff going on but this was the straw that broke the camel’s back. There is an excellent presentation on the topic of the Great Schism at
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/bishops_part_35_the_pivotal_11th_century
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I am no theologian. Nor am I an accomplished historian. But I do read a fair amount of history and I do accept that certain practicalities were at work.
There is no particular reason to assume that, just because Rome was the center of the political world at the time of the early Church, that it necessarily led to Rome being and remaining the “See of Peter”. It does not seem difficult to me to believe that Rome was Peter’s see because it was his see at the end of his life. It could just as well have been Carthage, but it wasn’t.
One of the things that strikes me about all of this argument between Catholics and Orthodox is the question of Catholicism…Universality. Both claim exclusive right to the term. You’re a Methodist for now at least, and i don’t especially like saying something that might come across as critical either of Catholicism or Orthodoxy, but I will say the following.
Orthodoxy conceives of its “Catholicity” in a way that’s different from the way Catholicism does. Orthodoxy thinks of it’s universality in a collegial way. It therefore depends for any new thoughts on ecumenical councils. And for the church as a whole, the ecumenical councils must include all of the Patriarchs of all of the seats of the Church. They, in turn, must act in a collegial way as well. No Patriarch would go to a council and agree to things his bishops did not approve of. Now, if one thinks about that, there is a certain tendency to become frozen (the Orthodox would prefer “stable” or “unchanging”). If something was thought of in a particular way back at the last council, it must remain that way in order for the Church to remain “universal”. The concept isn’t that of “majority rules” either. It is believed that the Holy Spirit makes the determinations of councils infallible.
If they don’t believe unity in a council is possible, they just don’t have one.
But difficulties are presented when it comes to dissent or, simply different viewpoints. Some of the Orthodox churches accept this council and its teachings, but not that one. Others accept more, but not all. As a consequence, the universality has cracks in it; cracks that are never quite repaired, but the whole sort of remains unified or “universal” by not bringing disagreements to the breaking point.
Catholicism, on the other hand, is vastly more centralized and does, indeed, have a final arbiter. Catholics believe that the pronouncements of the Pope are infallible in matters of faith and morals, in concert with all the bishops of the Catholic Church.
Is that a better model as a practical matter, leaving theology out of it for a moment? One can argue either way. The Catholic Church is far larger than all Orthodox churches put together, and is worldwide of its nature and intent while Orthodox churches are very territorial in nature and in intent. Their being that way is part of their collegial approach, because (with some notable exceptions) they do not believe in encroaching on each other in any manner, territory being one of those things.
If you look at Catholicism, though, you, as a Methodist, certainly know what happens. Pieces literally break off the block precisely because the Catholic Church does, indeed, claim universality in all things, with teachings coming from one center (though not entirely from one man) and does not go on as if significant separations have not occurred.
Some of this is, I think, cultural. Easterners do not seem to find their internal diversity of belief unacceptable (though they do have fierce arguments among themselves from time to time). Catholicism does not accept it other than that it tolerates it on an individual basis, without ever accepting that serious division in theology or morals is somehow also unity.
One can almost think of it in terms of the ancient cultures. Romans and their cultural progeny are practical, fairly spare in liturgy and decor, literal-minded theologically and very much inclined to think “the law is the law”. In that way, the Orthodox have a point when they consider, e.g., Methodism to simply be a subspecies of Catholicism. Methodists are also westerners and derive a great deal of their cultural overlay from everything “Rome” is, including the Catholic Church. Greeks and their cultural progeny are more mystical, very ornate in liturgy and decor, and relegate more to pastoral direction.
I do not pretend the above is particularly erudite in any manner. It is simply that I have, in the past, discussed these things with Orthodox quite a bit. I have read some of their theology and much of their history. Recognizing as I do at this point in my life, how thoroughly “western” or “Roman” that I am in so many ways, I think I see through at least a few of the thickets. Just a few.
H
Hasire
Guest
If I recall correctly, we have always said that we are the Catholic Church of the Orthodox Faith.[Lk 22:24-32] an argument broke out over who is the greatest among the apostles.
Who did Jesus commission, i.e. the one He names is the greatest among them…is it John? No. Is it Peter? Yes
Now to my 2nd question. When was the first time in writing, that “Orthodox Church” was written?
“An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by St John Damascene
“Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei” ~Pope St. Leo III
S
steve_b
Guest
According to Bp John (emphasis mine)
“being Catholic means not [O]rthodox and being [O]rthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an [O]rthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
On your other point, so we don’t get terms confused, If one looks in a directory for “Catholic Church” in a particular city or country, the name Catholic doesn’t get mixed up with Orthodox.
To test this, do a search for Catholic Church in Turkey for example.
mymerhaba.com/Catholic-Churches-in-Turkey-127.html do you see that the Orthodox Churches are seperate from Catholic Churches?
It’s as Bp John says. Being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic.
H
Hasire
Guest
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.asp
Read. Tell me who is the “Catholic Church” mentioned there.
D
dzheremi
Guest
And even before those times…
“Let them therefore, speaking out of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord, as it is written, be ashamed. For we, whose care is orthodoxy and who makest a special aim zealously to follow the right words of the holy Fathers, not the unbridled mouth and empty-speakings void of understanding of some, will not be minded otherwise than we ought to be minded, but ever going the straight way of the truth and having our mind filled with the holy Scriptures we both say that the Flesh of our Lord was ensouled with reasonable soul and believe that it is Divine and Spotless and glorified and moreover both life-giving and sanctifying, inasmuch as it became the own Flesh of the Word out of God the Father and affirm that it is not (as some have thought fit to think) of a son other than He, nor yet that it is changed into the Nature of Godhead.” (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Against the Synousiasts)
L
LoveMercyGrace
Guest
hahaha!
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
One of the less edifying documents which arose in response to another in history.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Anything earlier than 4th century? Council of Elvira 300-AD Canon 22- “If someone leaves the Catholic Church…”
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Considering that it was a response in part to proselytism, I think the strong tone is justified.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Ease up. What tone do you think would be appropriate for Catholics to use in response to Orthodox proselytising…including here on CAF?
- Status