Any Orthodox who believe in the papacy?

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Does anyone know other than the Russian Orthodox philosopher Soloviev any other Orthodox Christians (post schism) who have believed in the papacy, or have they all become Eastern Catholics?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Well my favourite example is St. George the Hagiorite, Georgian Orthodox Saint. However he did live during (and some time after) the Schism and before split became what it is today.

John XI Beccus of Constantinople also comes to mind. While his defense of Filioque doctrines are much more significant, he did subscribe to Papal Primacy. However this was also during time that union between Latin and Greek Church was being discussed and hence I believe that it isn’t exactly example you were looking for.

My pure logic alone tells me that unless there are very specific circumstances, any Orthodox who believes in Papacy would just become Eastern Catholic because that’s the logical thing. Openly professing Papacy while belonging to Church that denies it isn’t usual approach (and by that I mean no disrespect to Soloviev nor anyone else, who I am glad stood up for Papacy). In some jurisdictions that could mean trouble.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

It seems David Bentley Hart may support the papacy, albeit in a more limited, first millennium vision:

https://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2014/06/the-myth-of-schism-david-bentley-hart.html

 

[Wesrock]

The majority of Orthodox I’m familiar with believe in Papal Primacy. It is Papal Supremacy they object to.

 

[adamhovey1988]

A few, but a lot of them DO become Eastern Catholics.

 

[Genesis315]

Probably not many these days, but before EO objections to to Catholic Church were more universally developed and settled in the last couple hundred years, a good deal of them were more like what we would call “sedevacantists.” That’s why at Florenace, the primacy was less of an issue than the Filioque–once the latter was worked out, the former was more of a natural consequence.

For example, an EO saint, Symeon of Thessalonica from a few decades before Florence, wrote the following (as quoted in Meyendorff, et al’s Primacy of Peter):

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If this is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff…Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Saviour Himself."

 

[Genesis315]

The majority of Orthodox I’m familiar with believe in Papal Primacy. It is Papal Supremacy they object to.

Is there a definition of the primacy that isn’t either utterly meaningless flattery or doesn’t logically lead to the Catholic doctrines on it?

If they believe in papal primacy (however they define it) as an element of the true Church, why do their Churches not have it in any way, shape, or form?

(sorry, I don’t mean to put you in the position of defending their claims–just raising the questions to their claims).

 

[Isaac14]

A few connected thoughts regarding this:

Apostolic Canon 34: The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

Using my own Orthodox Church in America as an example, the Statutes define the roles of both the Primate and the Diocesan Bishop. While their duties overlap, the Metropolitan (i.e. the Primate) is charged with convening meetings of the Holy Synod of Bishops and setting the agenda for those meetings. He is also uniquely charged with counseling his brother Bishops, with maintaining unity amongst the Bishops, consecrating Holy Chrism, etc.

I think a papal primacy that allows the Pope to overrule the bishops isn’t going to fly with the Orthodox. A primacy that sees the Pope convening the bishops and setting the agenda for them to meet, discuss, and decide collectively would (after a lot of grumbling) ultimately be acceptable.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

I think a papal primacy that allows the Pope to overrule the bishops isn’t going to fly with the Orthodox. A primacy that sees the Pope convening the bishops and setting the agenda for them to meet, discuss, and decide collectively would (after a lot of grumbling) ultimately be acceptable.

This is the struggle for me, because I have come to believe in the papal primacy quite strongly after seeing the failure of Orthodox ecclesiology to solve important issues, i.e. the failure to gather all the churches for a Great and Holy Council, the Constantinople-Moscow schism, and the schism between Antioch and Jerusalem. The papacy is the only logical, historical and apostolic answer to a broken ecclesiology that admits no earthly master and can summon no Council.

But on the other hand, I love the people in the Orthodox Church and cannot bring myself to leave, sensing it is not right for my soul at this time to become Catholic.

My vision of the balanced papal primacy would give the pope supremacy but in a restrained manner, basically what @OrbisNonSufficit would like to see as a reform of the papacy back to the first millennium ideals of Pope St. Gregory the Great/Dialogist.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

This is the struggle for me, because I have come to believe in the papal primacy quite strongly after seeing the failure of Orthodox ecclesiology to solve important issues, i.e. the failure to gather all the churches for a Great and Holy Council, the Constantinople-Moscow schism, and the schism between Antioch and Jerusalem. The papacy is the only logical, historical and apostolic answer to a broken ecclesiology that admits no earthly master and can summon no Council.

But on the other hand, I love the people in the Orthodox Church and cannot bring myself to leave, sensing it is not right for my soul at this time to become Catholic.

I’ve just spend hour or so trying to find some authoritative Catholic document that basically says that if there is indeed just cause, Eastern Orthodox who accepts Catholic teaching about Papacy in their heart can formally remain in Eastern Orthodoxy while being at no odds with Catholic Church. From my memory, this would only apply to those who are Eastern Orthodox and haven’t ever been Catholics. But fact I haven’t been able to find it might (and probably does) mean that it wasn’t really way I remember it… so if other posters could help that would be nice. I know it was discussed in some topic like a year ago but it’s honestly been far too long. I remember engaging in couple of topics with @dochawk and ZP (I can’t tag him for some reason) but as I said I might just be flat out wrong too…

Anyway, I will add you to my prayers. May Lord help you discern what you ought to do.

My vision of the balanced papal primacy would give the pope supremacy but in a restrained manner, basically what @OrbisNonSufficit would like to see as a reform of the papacy back to the first millennium ideals of Pope St. Gregory the Great/Dialogist.

Now we just need to get Pope, Patriarchs and perhaps some Cardinals on board with the idea, and we’re all set In all seriousness I believe that Church will go towards it. Pope-centered view in the West seems to be decreasing but without directly undermining Papal Authority. Popes are beginning to exercise less and less authority even in the West (and even less so in the East, even though there is still room for development). Eastern Catholic Churches are now trying to refuse participation in Latin Church business as well as establish their own authority. It seems unlikely that Popes will try to assert dominance over East. Extremes in the West try to assert direct Pope-centered view while extremes in the East try to assert total independence. I think only logical outcome where Church survives (and we were promised it will) is balanced model of Pope St. Gregory.

But as one wise man in one internet article said, we must not fight spiritual warfare with just earthly weapons. It is obvious who wants to attack the Church by distorting it’s structure. So, let us fight with best weapons we have- namely our prayers.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

I’ve just spend hour or so trying to find some authoritative Catholic document that basically says that if there is indeed just cause, Eastern Orthodox who accepts Catholic teaching about Papacy in their heart can formally remain in Eastern Orthodoxy while being at no odds with Catholic Church.

If you do find it, I would love to read it.

Anyway, I will add you to my prayers. May Lord help you discern what you ought to do.

Thank you, my brother.

Extremes in the West try to assert direct Pope-centered view while extremes in the East try to assert total independence. I think only logical outcome where Church survives (and we were promised it will) is balanced model of Pope St. Gregory.

Amen.

It is obvious who wants to attack the Church by distorting it’s structure. So, let us fight with best weapons we have- namely our prayers.

Amen, amen, amen.

 

[Lasse]

Does anyone know other than the Russian Orthodox philosopher Soloviev any other Orthodox Christians (post schism) who have believed in the papacy, or have they all become Eastern Catholics?

The doctrine is quite new and you could argue that many Catholics in the West did not believe in it until it was proclaimed dogma; it would be anachronistic to say that they opposed it or believed in it. However, the strong anti-latin sentiment we are all too familiar with now, did not really come about before the 13th century and the fourth crusade; most Christians considered Rome to be “first” up until then.

I am also Orthodox and I can see why the Papacy would be a tempting solution for visible unity, but I do not think obedience to a “world bishop” is a solution. Schism is sinful, but humans sin.