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

[Bballer32]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

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]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

... 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]

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

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]

Originally Posted by Peter J

(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]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

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]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

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]

Originally Posted by Schism hater

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

[johnnykins]

http://rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html

a good summary of the arguments for Papal supremacy...perhaps already posted. You buy it or you don't.

[chimo]

May be what the Orthodox do not like is the word supremecy and authority. It does not define accurately what service the Holy Father enjoys. It is to my observations that later on in the future the Pope will have his office more defined to the liking and approval of all. We are not there yet because we are only discovering each other now. Now here I am referring to the Laity.

It is to my other observations that this change and occuring defination of the Holy Father's role for the whole Church will not come to this generation. Too many adults arguing about it. I believe we need the children and the youth to discover this and once the next generation can discover each other as Christians then the unity which can occur will be very easy. Let the children and our youth decide for adults for some reason today cannot express this.

I will say this. The Popes have been very good in discovering what the treasures of Orthodox and Eastern Christianity can be for them. This is a new development and in the future when the younger generations have learned much as they can about us and hopefully we will learn more of the Catholic Church then the future will open up to incredible possibilites. This development needs time before future Popes, Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests. Monastics and Laity can all agree to know what to do. We are only in the beginning process of this new development. The unity which God wants from us will not come from us but within these new developments where the youth and our children will take control of their own destiny of God's Church.

Very simply our unity will come when the youth and our children will discover all the treasures of each Church to make it their own.

[hazcompat]

Jesus, come to us.

Peace