Why do other Apostolic churches not believe in the Papacy?

[BrianH]

I have not posted too much lately. I certainly try to read and keep up but most discussions tend to go back to the same issues. I do not think I have seen this one discussed that much though.
This is not a debate about the Papacy persay, we certainly have all read those. It is not about Protestants either.
When one looks at all the churches that have apostolic origins that are in communion with Rome, I believe 23 although I could be wrong of course, the exact number is not so important, it is evident many churches believe in the Papacy.
I then see the churches that form the Eastern Orthodox church, the Oriental Orthodox churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East that also have apostolic origins.that do not believe in the Papacy.
From a Catholic perspective(understanding fully the importance of Sacred Tradition and so forth), why did this occur? Why do other Apostolic churches reject the Papacy?
I know the history of who did what and when, I do not think that is the route to go.
From my perspective only, it seems to me the things the apostolic churches agree on, Real Presence, veneration of Saints, etc, makes a strong case for those things they agree on. It speaks to the reliability of that tradition. Those things they do not agree on seem less reliable.
BH

 

[Mannyfit75]

I have not posted too much lately. I certainly try to read and keep up but most discussions tend to go back to the same issues. I do not think I have seen this one discussed that much though.
This is not a debate about the Papacy persay, we certainly have all read those. It is not about Protestants either.
When one looks at all the churches that have apostolic origins that are in communion with Rome, I believe 23 although I could be wrong of course, the exact number is not so important, it is evident many churches believe in the Papacy.
I then see the churches that form the Eastern Orthodox church, the Oriental Orthodox churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East that also have apostolic origins.that do not believe in the Papacy.
From a Catholic perspective(understanding fully the importance of Sacred Tradition and so forth), why did this occur? Why do other Apostolic churches reject the Papacy?
I know the history of who did what and when, I do not think that is the route to go.
From my perspective only, it seems to me the things the apostolic churches agree on, Real Presence, veneration of Saints, etc, makes a strong case for those things they agree on. It speaks to the reliability of that tradition. Those things they do not agree on seem less reliable.
BH

They don’t believe in the authority of the Pope only as equal to other bishops. You may want to ask Fr. Ambrose from the E. Orthodox Christians.

 

[Maranatha]

Why do other Apostolic churches reject the Papacy?

newadvent.org/cathen/12405a.htm

 

[BrianH]

Thank you Maranatha. One vote for “pride” I see.

Manny I know why the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and so forth do not believe in it, in a way, its the same reason I do not believe in it at this time, but why do YOU think they reject it?

 

[ChantingMarine]

Christ is Born!!! Glorify Him!!!

I know that your question was asked over a year ago. However, I wanted to reply to it.

The Oriental Orthodox Church is not in communion with either the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is due in part to fact that they only participated in the first three ecumenical councils and severed their ties over the divinity of Christ. That had nothing to due with the papacy, because there was no papacy at that time.

The final nail for the Great Schism between the Western Church (Rome) and the Eastern Church (Orthodox) occurred in 1054 ad. In order to keep this post short I’m only going to you a 10,000 foot view and not get into the gain of a laundry list of issues that have kept the Great Schism going over the centuries.

From the 4th to the 8th ecumenical councils there were five Holy Sees recognized: Rome (St Peter), Constantinople (St Andrew), Antioch (St Peter prior to moving in Rome and all apostles elected a new patriarch for this see), Alexandria (St Mark), and Jerusalem (St James).

We all know that Our Lord and Savoir called St Peter the first among EQUALS. For an Orthodox the ideal of a papacy nullifies the meaning of equals. Each Patriarch governors’ his own episcopate and the only High Priest on earth is Our Lord and Savior.

The final nail that I talked about was the Patriarch of Rome sending excommunication orders to the other Patriarchs and they returned the favor in 1054, which was rescinded on both sides in the 1950’s as a big misunderstanding.

East and West are talking and trying to work on differences is hopes to be able to commune with the other. But it will take a very long time.

 

[Hesychios]

…
I then see the churches that form the Eastern Orthodox church, the Oriental Orthodox churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East that also have apostolic origins.that do not believe in the Papacy.
From a Catholic perspective(understanding fully the importance of Sacred Tradition and so forth), why did this occur? Why do other Apostolic churches reject the Papacy?
I know the history of who did what and when, I do not think that is the route to go.
From my perspective only, it seems to me the things the apostolic churches agree on, Real Presence, veneration of Saints, etc, makes a strong case for those things they agree on. It speaks to the reliability of that tradition.** Those things they do not agree on seem less reliable.**
BH

An astute observation.

As Chanting Marine has pointed out, the Papacy that you are thinking of simply did not exist in those prior times. Having no history of it, and not inheriting such an office from the Apostles, the Orthodox do not recognize the institution as genuine.

So there is no “rejection” of the Papacy, simply no recognition of it, since it is a later development and not Apostolic.

One can say, for instance, that the American colonists rejected the British monarchy because they once knew it and understood it to have real authority over them from the first days of the colony.

For the Irish nation by contrast, this was not the case. Eire existed as a sovereign land long before the British monarchy imposed itself, in fact sovereign and independent long before the British monarchy ever existed. The people of Eire could say that they as a people never accepted this authority as a matter of principle, it being a late development imposed upon them from the outside through force.

Which brings us to the little matter of the 22 non-Latin Sui Iuris churches. A cursory examination of the history of most of these will reveal that they are a result of the projection of western political/military power over eastern Christians.

Those powers include: the Normans, the Franks, the Venetians, the Poles, the Hungarians and most notoriously the Portuguese. All of these participated in the dismemberment of eastern Christian churches or otherwise exploited disputes within them, and subsequently imposed Latin theology and traditions upon them.

This process was in full flower from the eleventh century to the sixteenth. There are a few notable exceptions to this method (especially the Melkites and the Russian Catholic church) but the majority of these are the fruit of police state interventions.