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

[Ridgerunner]

I have not read the document in question as it does not concern my communion, and furthermore I don’t particularly care what the Roman Pope had to say to the Eastern Orthodox (or vice-versa; I can guess, knowing the general stances of both, so I don’t feel I have to read it). I am instead stating a general principle that it is not wrong that any church or communion should stand up for the integrity of its faith and the continuance of its communion and the preservation of it from schism. Far from being “the soul of X” (EO, RC, OO, ACOE, whatever), it is entirely understandable (even in cases where I might not agree with the substance of the faith being defended) that the communions should react this way to attempts to poach their faithful. After all, it has always been the case in the Church that it is the heretics who call forth a reaction (always quite strong!) from the faithful, rather than the faithful striking out of malice toward those who hold different opinions. It is on those grounds that I am dismissing the idea that the document should either be called “vicious” or misconstrued as “the heart of Orthodoxy”. Had the Roman Pope or his missionaries never set upon converting the Eastern churches, their faith and praxis by which they live in worship of God would still remain at the heart of their existence; that Rome should try to upset that by introducing its own way via missionary work and thereby provoke what you see as a harsh reaction is more of a cause and effect relationship than something elemental about or unique to Orthodoxy. The Roman Popes too used to tell their faithful (e.g., Unam Sanctam) that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that all should be subject to the Roman Pontiff, without regard to whether or not those who were not so in submission would find it a particularly nice thing to say or not, so please spare me this diversion into personal feelings. In the face of the encroachment of heresy, there really can’t be too strong a refutation. As the monks of the desert tore up Leo’s Tome before the imperial messengers (so the story goes), the Eastern Chalcedonians anathematized those who would not accept it (e.g., me and my compatriots), and the Romans anathematized us both for a list of real and imagined “heresies” in the Roman mind (e.g., not accepting the filioque, not bowing to the Pope as supreme universal authority, etc). Does that make you vicious hateful creatures, as well? Of course not! You are doing what you feel needs to be done.

Maybe I’m crazy but I much prefer this (as it is rooted in reality…“mean”, “vicious”, but entirely sensible reality) to the other strain of thought in RC-non RC relations, wherein we are all just so close to you in all things, and only a hair’s breath away from communion (until we point out that this is not actually the case, and then it’s “WHY ARE YOU GUYS SO GOSH DARNED MEAN?” or some iteration of the same).

As HH Pope Shenouda III put it, in response to the lure of Protestantism among some misguided Copts, “Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy”. This is why we say anything at all about churches outside of our own, and I don’t imagine the EO in the linked document to be doing anything different. Elucidation of principles, even in strong terms (or maybe especially in strong terms), is not viciousness. It is necessary when you believe you have the truth, and see threats posed to that truth in the form of overtures from others who would have you give up the truth for their (deficient, wrong, however you want to put it) version of it. I would hope that RCs would understand and affirm this principle, separate from any bad feelings they might feel at having it applied to them by the Orthodox.

Long, long ago, I wrote and published a short story in which, at the very end a couple of boys fishing watched a large trout eye their bait, turn and swim away. Sometimes I’m reminded of that story.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ve heard Anglicans say it. After all, they recite the Nicene Creed just like we do.

I suspected they did. I guess, thinking about it, that I have just never been there when they did, and didn’t know for sure.

 

[tomarin]

I suspected they did. I guess, thinking about it, that I have just never been there when they did, and didn’t know for sure.

They usually wait for you to leave the room.

 

[Bballer32]

I have simply expressed disagreement with certain dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, the filioque, and Papal Infallibility, as well as certain acts of making theologoumena like Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception into dogmas

Did you know that on of your own faith has proclaimed that the teaching of the filioque is actually correct by the Catholic understanding.

Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, who wrote a book a while back that strongly opposed the filioque, stated:

The filioque controversy which has separated us (Catholics & Orthodox) for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics(the study of meaning) and different emphases(emphasis on certain words or phrases) than in any basic doctrinal differences. Diakonia, quoted from Archbishop Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43]

 

[malphono]

εις τους αιώνας των αιώνων

 

[steve_b]

I don’t know if I’ve ever heard it put that way before.

It probably requires a little explanation

Lk 22: (emphasis mine)
24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. ( that’s a disagreement over primacy ) 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. ( Jesus didn’t negate one of them would rule, he affirms it) 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? ( Jesus setting the example for the apostle He is telling the others is the greatest among them) Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.(That’s why the pope is called servant of the servants) 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.(Jesus confers on the 11, His kingdom, Judas has already left the room )
31 “Simon, Simon, ( Peter is the only one among them, Jesus names here. Peter is their leader.). Satan has asked to sift you as wheat ( “You” in the Greek is plural. All of them therefore are being sifted by Satan, that’s why they are in this argument. But notice, Jesus informs the others through Peter ). 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”( No question this answered their argument. It’s Peter. BTW, Does Satan ever stop sifting? No )

Therefore, Our Lord is always praying for the pope to lead and strengthen His Church, because Satan is always sifting. And we see that, witness the same arguments over and over again, on this same issue of primacy…right?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Chalcedon 451

Canon 30

Since the most religious bishops of Egypt have postponed for the present their subscription to the letter of the most holy Archbishop Leo, not because they oppose the Catholic Faith, but because they declare that it is the custom in the Egyptian diocese to do no such thing without the consent and order of their Archbishop, and ask to be excused until the ordination of the new bishop of the metropolis of Alexandria, it has seemed to us reasonable and kind that this concession should be made to them, they remaining in their official habit in the imperial city until the Archbishop of the Metropolis of Alexandria shall have been ordained.

Accepted Canon!

…

Also I find the idea of converting the Eastern Church’s inconsistent in light of the above Council, the Robber Council, and Trullo. All I see is a collaborated effort to impose one’s will on another. And it seems to me Rome had the final say over all this effort to impose.

In fact the same could be said visa-versa and historically of the East. Not an argument which helps unity.

Still don’t see how equal, equates to First or Second Chair, in fact I see it as a contradiction to first and second. First is first, last is last, the fact that these are all Bishops is not relevant to being First or Last, Second, Third, Forth or Fifth.

Historically while it is stated that Rome was given this position in Honor, I see no way in separating the Honor from its Authority, or as seems above as the Church’s remained in “Communion” after all these Councils and Canons where rejected by Rome or upheld by Rome. So then while centuries pasted in communion what is to be made of pre Schism to Post Schism?

So in fact “yes” I would say for sure The East submitted to the Popes position of the Chair of Peter established Biblically by Divinity. Its self evident in the Councils.

V-II and V-I are of no issue since all this occurred “before” both Councils.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Council of Florence: it proclaimed before both Latins and Greeks that the Roman pontiff was the foremost ecclesiastical [authority] in Christendom; and Eugene IV was able to arrest the schism which had been threatening”

[New Advent]

 

[Peter_J]

“Council of Florence: it proclaimed before both Latins and Greeks that the Roman pontiff was the foremost ecclesiastical [authority] in Christendom; and Eugene IV was able to arrest the schism which had been threatening”

[New Advent]

“Arrest” seems to me a strong, and misleading, term to use there. Delaying the schism for a matter of days, weeks, months, or even one or two years, well … that’s a very small delay in terms of the life of the Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Arrest” seems to me a strong, and misleading, term to use there. Delaying the schism for a matter of days, weeks, months, or even one or two years, well … that’s a very small delay in terms of the life of the Church.

I agree, its also true that perhaps I’m more inclined to see the CC perspective.

 

[Bballer32]

Chalcedon 451

Canon 30

Since the most religious bishops of Egypt have postponed for the present their subscription to the letter of the most holy Archbishop Leo, not because they oppose the Catholic Faith, but because they declare that it is the custom in the Egyptian diocese to do no such thing without the consent and order of their Archbishop, and ask to be excused until the ordination of the new bishop of the metropolis of Alexandria, it has seemed to us reasonable and kind that this concession should be made to them, they remaining in their official habit in the imperial city until the Archbishop of the Metropolis of Alexandria shall have been ordained.

Accepted Canon!

…

Also I find the idea of converting the Eastern Church’s inconsistent in light of the above Council, the Robber Council, and Trullo. All I see is a collaborated effort to impose one’s will on another. And it seems to me Rome had the final say over all this effort to impose.

In fact the same could be said visa-versa and historically of the East. Not an argument which helps unity.

Still don’t see how equal, equates to First or Second Chair, in fact I see it as a contradiction to first and second. First is first, last is last, the fact that these are all Bishops is not relevant to being First or Last, Second, Third, Forth or Fifth.

Historically while it is stated that Rome was given this position in Honor, I see no way in separating the Honor from its Authority, or as seems above as the Church’s remained in “Communion” after all these Councils and Canons where rejected by Rome or upheld by Rome. So then while centuries pasted in communion what is to be made of pre Schism to Post Schism?

So in fact “yes” I would say for sure The East submitted to the Popes position of the Chair of Peter established Biblically by Divinity. Its self evident in the Councils.

V-II and V-I are of no issue since all this occurred “before” both Councils.

Even the 2nd Ecumenical council of Constantinople 1 (which is accepted by the EO) stated:

The bishop of Constantinople however shall have the prerogative of honor AFTER the bishop of Rome. [Canon 3 (A.D. 381)]

 

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Orthodox Bishop

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.

I don’t want to be difficult, but this is not historically accurate, though it’s widely believed.

Actually, I doubt that the quote from OB is widely believed. Its historical inaccuracy is sure to be widely known.

 

[dvdjs]

… Maybe I’m crazy but I much prefer this (as it is rooted in reality…“mean”, “vicious”, but entirely sensible reality) to the other strain of thought in RC-non RC relations, wherein we are all just so close to you in all things, and only a hair’s breath away from communion (until we point out that this is not actually the case, and then it’s “WHY ARE YOU GUYS SO GOSH DARNED MEAN?” or some iteration of the same).

I am not entirely sure what “rooted in realitiy” means, but I prefer straight “reality”. The real problem, IMO, is that the divisive polemics all too often just don’t get the facts right, even as they claim, often with chest-thumping caps: “Here are the facts”.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree, its also true that perhaps I’m more inclined to see the CC perspective.

I’m not sure what you mean by the CC perspective. I’m a Catholic too, just not an LC (Latin Catholic).

 

[GaryTaylor]

(Latin Catholic).

Would be more accurate.

What is your Catholic perspective being in communion with Rome?

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Aside from the typical liberal atheism, other challenges I get about being Catholic typically have come from the Eastern Orthodox, and those not belonging to a Church who claim everything was a mish mash of Christian-brand belief for the first 300 years.

 

[Schism_hater]

No, my friend. I only wished to express my disapproval of posting a divisive and scurrilous tract about Catholicism, and it was my thought that any Orthodox in here justifying it would seem to endorse the attack; something I felt would do nothing but cause ill will.

It was only posted to show that Orthodox have not relinquished the title “Catholic”. That was clear to me from the beginning, and Hasire has confirmed that expressly. That being the case, I don’t understand why you continue to use the statement (it isn’t a “tract”) as an occasion of offense to you. For myself, I don’t like its tone, and I don’t like the tone of the Papal pronouncement it was a response to.

 

[Schism_hater]

IThe real problem, IMO, is that the divisive polemics all too often just don’t get the facts right, even as they claim, often with chest-thumping caps: “Here are the facts”.

So true.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It was only posted to show that Orthodox have not relinquished the title “Catholic”. That was clear to me from the beginning, and Hasire has confirmed that expressly. That being the case, I don’t understand why you continue to use the statement (it isn’t a “tract”) as an occasion of offense to you. For myself, I don’t like its tone, and I don’t like the tone of the Papal pronouncement it was a response to.

I responded to the one who posted it (Hasire, was it?) that, it only being his intent to demonstrate that Orthodox apply the term “Catholic” to Orthodoxy, and not to endorse the scurrilous statements also in the statement, he had nothing to apologize for. What more did you want?

I never said the insults to the Pope and to Catholicism in the “statement” offended me personally. I have seen a lot worse. I expressed my belief that such statements are likely to cause ill will. You evidently don’t like the statement either or the Papal statement that preceded it. I don’t know what the papal statment says, but if it’s offensive and likely to cause ill will, then I would equally discourage any Catholic (or any Orthodox for that matter) from posting it.

I personally don’t like to see the firestorms that have sometimes erupted on CAF between Catholics and Orthodox. I realize the potential is always there, and it can get a lot worse than most viewers would expect. And it always begins with some assertion of perfidy by one directed at the other. Because that statement most definitely was an assertion of perfidy against Rome, I thought it at minimum, an unfortunate way to demonstrate the otherwise inoffensive fact that the Orthodox apply the term “Catholic” to Orthodoxy.

I think you agree with that, do you not?

If I thought those firestorm arguments could serve any useful purpose, I would think differently. But I have seen plenty of them, and have never seen a positive result from them, and have seen plenty of negative.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

Please review the Important Forum Information sticky at the top of the Eastern Catholicism board then return to debate the topic at hand in an honest and respectable way that conforms to the strict debate guidelines here on the EC forum.

I expect an immediate change in the tone, tenor and focus of the thread.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator