The Eastern bishops submitted to Rome only because Rome was very orthodox?

[BusterMartin]

I could not disagree more. I pray for communion between them to be restored and strengthened. They are an apostolic Church, and I want them to be as healthy and fruitful as possible. Any break in communion should be considered a cause for concern and prayers. I pray that all the Orthodox Churches find a common ground and reach full communion with each other. I pray they will all one day be considered canonical. Once that happens, I pray that down the road east and west can restore communion after having come to an agreement on areas of concern between them. Likewise, I pray the same for all apostolic Churches. All involved need our prayers.

 

[ziapueblo]

UGCC?
UCC?
EP?
KP?
UAOC?
UOC-MP?

In order:
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
Ecummenical Patriarch
Kiev Patriarch
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orothodox Church
Ukranian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarch

Thats a lot!

ZP

 

[tafan2]

Thanks, and UCC is the Ukranian Catholic Church I assume?

 

[ziapueblo]

Yes, UGCC/UCC is the same

@dochawk

I hope I didn’t steal your thunder answering this question?

ZP

 

[dochawk]

You saved me plenty of typing

Fortunately, I saw that there was already a reply before I answered . . .

Others that come into play are

ROC, Russian Orthodox Church
UOC-MP, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church tied to the MP
UOC-KPm the Ukrainian Orthodox Church tied to the KP and EP

hawk

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

Yet the Chieti Document , a joint Roman Catholic and Orthodox dialogue, both Churches acknowledge that Rome did not have canonical authority over the East. We must not confuse primacy with supremacy.

Strictly speaking the document does not say precisely that; it says in relevant part that: “the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East” (para. 19). Simply because the Pope did not ordinarily exercise or chose not to exercise certain of its canonical authorities does not mean he had none. He did. After all, the paragraph details some such canonical authorities in its prior sentences.

As a separate related point, recall that the Pope did, sometimes, exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. Take, for but one example (there are several), Pope St. Leo annulling the psuedo-28th canon from the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, and therefore for all churches, including those of the East

Pope St. Leo the Great: “As for the resolution of the bishops, which is contrary to the Nicene decree (28th canon), in union with the piety of your faith I declare it to be invalid, and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter.” (Ep. 105; ed. Ball).

St. Anatolius of Constantinople, after having requested Leo’s confirmation of Chalcedon’s canons, and after apologizing for the pseudo-28th canon, submitted to Leo’s judgment, stating definitively to the Pope that “the whole force of confirmation of the acts [of Chalcedon] was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness (Ep. 132; ed. Ball).”

I add this for context (I suspect we agree on all of this)

 

[steve-b]

A common argument I hear on here from people that don’t believe in papal supremacy, even when you show all the quotes from Eastern fathers being submissive to Rome’s rulings, is this…

“The other bishops were submissive to Rome because they were the standard of orthodoxy, not because they had power over all the bishops. Then Rome later stopped being orthodox and broke off from the church.”

Is this a valid argument?

No.

 

[steve-b]

The Eastern submitted to Rome? Even Rome admits that they did not have canonical authority over the Eastern Churches.

ZP

Yet,

Re: canonical authority in the East, see how Eastern canon law and the papacy and supreme is defined

Here is the Eastern Code of Canon Law CCEO 1990 Code of Canons of Oriental churches

Do a word search on “Pontiff” then “supreme”.

• Pontiff shows up 120 times.
• See how canon law defines Pontiff and his authority
• While you’re searching, do a search on the word supreme . It appears 27 times. See how it is used.

 

[ziapueblo]

Pope Leo’s rejection of canon 28 has to do with Constantinople being elevated above Alexandria and Antioch. Despite his protest, the Council fathers ignored him.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Here are some interesting quotes from the Latin Fathers of the Church:

St. Augustine
“For these keys not one man but the unity of the Church received. Hereby, then, is the excellence of Peter set forth that he was an emblem of the Church in its universality and unity, when it was said to him, I give to thee what was given to all. For that ye may know that the Church did receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven hear in another place what the Lord said to all Apostles. “Receive the Holy Ghost,” and then instantly, “whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained”[St. John xx. 22,23].

St. Jerome
“But you say that the Church is founded on Peter, although the same thing is done in another place upon all the Apostles, and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon all.”[see: S. Hieron., Adv. Jovin. i. cap. xxvi.; P.L. xxiii. 247].

St. Ambrose
“therefore the Lord gave the Apostles that which was previously part of his own juridical authority. Hear Him saying I will give the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, to thee he says, I will give the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, that you may bind and loose. What he said to peter is said to the Apostles.”[St. Ambrose, Enarratio in Psalm. xxxviii. 37; P.L. xiv. 1037].

Theophylact
“They who have obtained the grace of the Episcopate as Peter had, have authority to remit and bind, for though “I will give thee” was spoken to Peter alone, yet the gift has been given to all the Apostles. When? When he said, whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted, for this I will give thee indicates a future time, the time, that is, after the resurrection,”[Theophylact, Enarratio in Matthew cap. xiv. 19; P.G.cxxiii. 302]

They see that the ability to “bind and loose” have to do with the “keys.” Yes, the Pope of Rome has a primacy over the bishops and yes, he is a sign of communion in the church, but not one of supreme authority over the Eastern Churches.

Here’s a good video. It’s of one of the theologians on the Catholic side during the writing of the Chieti document. It’s over an hour but worth watching if you have the time.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...WCNkBTJSg92xSsjMg4Kgv-7KWhevNuaNNy0r4G4FQ&s=1

ZP

 

[Wandile]

That’s impossible as he only protested after the council. The council fathers ignored the protests of the legates but that was only because they passed the resolution in a sneaky way. They passed it on the one day the papal legates weren’t there and when the legates heard of it their protests fell on deaf ears.

The patriarch himself apologized to St Leo for the canon. After that only 27 canons of Chalcedon were spoken of in church history. At least according to the Greek historian Socrates Scholasticus who lived in the first millennium.

 

[Wandile]

Well of course your quotes do nothing against papal supremacy. Those quotes speak of the Keys which refers to the power to forgive sins. That’s the sacerdotal mystery conferred upon the clergy of the church. However it’s once from Peter then to all from where this flows. Secondly the supremacy of the Pope has been spelled out explicitly by the eastern fathers and councils as I’ve shown. They even understood it that way.

The Latin Fathers are not the ones you want to quote on this as they only bolster my point.

St Irenaeus of Lyons:

“ For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [ propter potentiorem principalitatem ] – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere .”

St Jerome:

“ As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails “

“Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church the head of the whole Roman world and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all [churches] the bonds of sacred communion."

St Peter Chrysologus writing to the priest Eutyches:

“ submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome “

 

[ziapueblo]

The east has always recognized the validity of cannon 28.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Being an Eastern Catholic is tough. Spend half my time defending the Orthodox and half my time defending Rome

ZP

 

[Wandile]

Not really. St Leo issued a rebuttal to the canon and as you have seen the EP apologized immediately. The matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.” This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.

Alexandria have always rejected it and the Byzantines only managed to have it in force after the Antiochans and Alexandrians went into schism. Constantinople with the helpf of the emperor erected and appointed Greek figureheads in rival sees of those two patriarchates an who were weak (due to the schism and Muslim invasions) and susceptible to Constantinoples advances of authority. It was literally forced into being at least practically (not canonically) on the Byzantine eatsern churches later through imperial and economic force of Constantinople.

 

[Wandile]

I’ve never understood why Eastern Catholics take it upon themselves to defend the errors of the EO. Especially on matter like the filioque, original sin, divorce and remarriage and papal authority all of which they are bang wrong and the patristic testimony as conciliar decrees show.

Heck even Mark of Ephesus was willing to grant Papal authority at the council of Florence. His only and main issue was the filioque.

 

[ziapueblo]

We are not Roman Catholic. Catholic is not synonymous for Roman Catholic. Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics with a different Mass. We have our own Liturgy, theology, etc. We study and follow the early Fathers of the Church. The Church is much more when not looking at it only through Roman lenses. Since Pope Leo XIII, we have been told by Rome to hold on to our ancient ecclesiastical heritage.

We don’t believe in the filioque. It’s not said when we sing the Creed. We don’t celebrate the Immaculate Conception. Byzantine Catholics do not have a devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. We have the same liturgical calendar and theology as the Orthodox. Last week we celebrated the Fathers of the Seventh Eccumenical Council. That’s not on the Roman lectionary. Saint Gregory Palamas is on our liturgical calendar. Not yours. We are Orthodox in communion with Rome! If you have ever been to a Byzantine Divine Liturgy, the only reason you would know we are Catholic is because during the litany we pray for the Pope of Rome.

What I can’t understand is how a document like the Chieti document comes out, looks seriously at the role of the Church during the first millennium, locally, regionally and universally, and states that the Pope did not have the role of authority that it does today and some, not all, but some RC’s get all up in arms over it. “It was written by liberal catholic bishops” is the excuse rather than seeing how the Church opporated at those three different levels. For crying out loud, the document does not take away primacy from Rome, it supports it! I have a friend, Melkite Greek Catholic, and he was in a discussion on Facebook with an apologist from CA (discussion not a debate). He asked why CA apologists have not brought up the Chieti document and discussion ended. Never heard back from him. Why?

Have you ever been accused by fellow Catholics that you’re not Catholic? We easterners get that all the time. That’s why we can be the way that we are sometimes, always having to prove how catholic we are. We are in this unusual place, stuck between Rome and the east. As Melkite bishop Nicholas once said, “we have everything in common with the Orthodox except communion and we have nothing in common with Roman Catholics except communion.” As a Roman Catholic, I’m sure you would find it strange that my priest, when parishioners are traveling and we are in a place that does not have a Byzantine Catholic Church, suggests we go to an Orthodox Church!

I was once pretty hard core into RC apologetics. I owe CAF a huge debt for helping defend my faith at a time I needed it the most (undergrad in college as we probably have all been in that situation. First time out in the world with Protestant Christians, non-believers and some professors that during a lecture will show thier anti-Christian views) but I discovered, on CAF, that the Catholic Church is much more than Roman. Much more diverse than Roman.

I’m taking a break. Not from CAF but this thread :joyeace!

ZP

 

[steve-b]

We are not Roman Catholic. Catholic is not synonymous for Roman Catholic. Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics with a different Mass. We have our own Liturgy, theology, etc. We study and follow the early Fathers of the Church. The Church is much more when not looking at it only through Roman lenses. Since Pope Leo XIII, we have been told by Rome to hold on to our ancient ecclesiastical heritage.

What I can’t understand is how a document like the Chieti document comes out, looks seriously at the role of the Church during the first millennium, locally, regionally and universally, and states that the Pope did not have the role of authority that it does today and some, not all, but some RC’s get all up in arms over it. “It was written by liberal catholic bishops” is the excuse rather than seeing how the Church opporated at those three different levels. For crying out loud, the document does not take away primacy from Rome, it supports it! I have a friend, Melkite Greek Catholic, and he was in a discussion on Facebook with an apologist from CA (discussion not a debate). He asked why CA apologists have not brought up the Chieti document and discussion ended. Never heard back from him. Why?

Let’s not lose focus that the document Chiety is a dialogue. An ongoing dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox. And given the schism that just happened between the Russians and the rest of Orthodoxy, the dialogue going forward is going to change yet again.

ziapueblo:

Have you ever been accused by fellow Catholics that you’re not Catholic? We easterners get that all the time.

As Melkite bishop Nicholas once said, “we have everything in common with the Orthodox except communion and we have nothing in common with Roman Catholics except communion.” As a Roman Catholic, I’m sure you would find it strange that my priest, when parishioners are traveling and we are in a place that does not have a Byzantine Catholic Church, suggests we go to an Orthodox Church!

Melkite Bishop emeritus, Bishop John spoke so effectively IMO,

Example:

From: Bp John

ziapueblo:

I was once pretty hard core into RC apologetics. I owe CAF a huge debt for helping defend my faith at a time I needed it the most (undergrad in college as we probably have all been in that situation.

I’m taking a break. Not from CAF but this thread :joyeace!

ZP

Hang in there. Honest dialogue can be challenging . light without heat is the goal

 

[Wandile]

We are not Roman Catholic. Catholic is not synonymous for Roman Catholic. Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics with a different Mass. We have our own Liturgy, theology, etc. We study and follow the early Fathers of the Church. The Church is much more when not looking at it only through Roman lenses. Since Pope Leo XIII, we have been told by Rome to hold on to our ancient ecclesiastical heritage

I’m not a newbie catholic. I’m very well acquainted with Eastern Catholics and their traditions.

We don’t believe in the filioque.It’s not said when we sing the Creed. We don’t celebrate the Immaculate Conception.

It seems you are one of those “Orthodox in communion with Rome” types. Bishop John Eliya already wrote about how incorrect such a notion is. The Antiochan Orthodox themselves reject it and so did the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger when both ourtright rejected the Zogbhy initiative as disingenuous and not tenable.

Suffice to say to all this there is a lot of mistakes and errors there. Yes I’m aware you are not Latins but our faith is the same.

Sure you don’t recite filioque in the creed but you are required to believe in it as correct. Immaculate conception is something you are required to believe too.

There is no such thing as dogma in the east and dogma in the west. There is only one truth. The east and west can’t both hold and deny the trinity at the same time. We both can’t believe and deny the Real presence at the same time. We are both required to believe the same dogmas. You may word it differently or express it differently but essentially we must hold to the same truths.

I’m sorry to say this to you but to say you don’t believe in filioque or the Immaculate conception is outright heresy and violates even the terms of reunion which your churches signed. There is a difference in observing feasts (immaculate conception) , customs (sacred heart) and even wording of doctrines but what can’t be accepted is denying dogmas. That is heresy point blank. I’m not saying you’re a heretic but I think you might be misguided as to what Eastern Catholics are required to believe. As a matter of fact, all Catholics.

What I can’t understand is how a document like the Chieti document comes out, looks seriously at the role of the Church during the first millennium, locally, regionally and universally, and states that the Pope did not have the role of authority that it does today and some, not all, but some RC’s get all up in arms over it.

Also ,that document first of all only admits he never exercised authority in the east, not that he didn’t have it… as has been pointed out in the thread by another poster.

 

[steve-b]

We are not Roman Catholic. Catholic is not synonymous for Roman Catholic. Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics with a different Mass. We have our own Liturgy, theology, etc. We study and follow the early Fathers of the Church. The Church is much more when not looking at it only through Roman lenses. Since Pope Leo XIII, we have been told by Rome to hold on to our ancient ecclesiastical heritage

I’m not a newbie catholic. I’m very well acquainted with Eastern Catholics and their traditions.

We don’t believe in the filioque.It’s not said when we sing the Creed. We don’t celebrate the Immaculate Conception.

It seems you are one of those “Orthodox in communion with Rome” types. Bishop John Eliya already wrote about how incorrect such a notion is. The Antiochan Orthodox themselves reject it and so did the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger when both ourtright rejected the Zogbhy initiative as disingenuous and not tenable.

Suffice to say to all this there is a lot of mistakes and errors there. Yes I’m aware you are not Latins but our faith is the same.

Sure you don’t recite filioque in the creed but you are required to believe in it as correct. Immaculate conception is something you are required to believe too.

There is no such thing a dogma in the east and dogma in the west. There is only one truth. The east and west can’t both hold and deny the trinity at the same time. We both can’t believe and deny the Real presence at the same time. We are both required to believe the same dogmas. You may word it differently or express it differently but essentially we must hold to the same truths.

I’m sorry to say this to you but to say you don’t believe in filioque or Immacukate conception is outright heresy and violates even the terms of reunion which your churches signed. There is a difference in observing feasts (immaculate conception) , customs (sacred heart) and even wording of doctrines but what can’t be accepted is denying dogmas. That is heresy point blank. I’m not saying you’re a heretic but I think you might be misguided as to what Eastern Catholics are required to believe. As a matter of fact, all Catholics.

What I can’t understand is how a document like the Chieti document comes out, looks seriously at the role of the Church during the first millennium, locally, regionally and universally, and states that the Pope did not have the role of authority that it does today and some, not all, but some RC’s get all up in arms over it.

Also ,that document first of all only admits he never exercised authority in the east, not that he didn’t have it… as has been pointed out in the thread by another poster.

Besides liking this post I just want to say you are spot on.