Do the Orthodox need a Pope?

[marlo]

Because everytime there’s a heresy coming from the East, the Emperor needs to clear the issue to create peace in the Empire. The west, especially the Pope is the teacher of Truth during the first 7 council. And to say that Orthodox were never “with Rome” is a sin of schism that you as a priest deny your own history. The 7 council alone is a solid testament that the Orthodox needs the Pope to become truly Orthodox.

Are you aware that the first seven Councils, which dealed specifically with Trinitarian issues, were NOT summoned by the Pope at all, but by the Emperor?

And Arius was never a bishop.

The Orthodox were never “with Rome” at all in any sense that they should return thither.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Marlo,

Because everytime there’s a heresy coming from the East, the Emperor needs to clear the issue to create peace in the Empire. The west, especially the Pope is the teacher of Truth during the first 7 council. And to say that Orthodox were never “with Rome” is a sin of schism that you as a priest deny your own history. The 7 council alone is a solid testament that the Orthodox needs the Pope to become truly Orthodox.

Just a quick note. Though I would agree with you that Rome was the standard of orthodoxy in the early Church, I have to disagree with the highlighted statement above. At any given time, there were bishops in the East that served as lights of orthodoxy for the Church, as well as the bishop of Rome.

This Latin idea that makes the bishop of Rome the be-all and end-all of any orthodoxy in the early Church is one of the absolutist Petrine notions that I reject. Just as the office of the papacy is of divine institution, so is the office of bishop of divine institution. I simply don’t believe there will ever be a time when the bishop of Rome ALONE would be the only orthodox bishop on this planet. In fact, that has never been the case.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

–The Church was founded on St Peter’s faith.
–Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.
–Holy Orthodoxy does not need to be in submission to Rome and Her “doctrinal development.”
–Rome separated from Holy Orthodoxy.

I voted nope.

 

[gmcbroom]

I voted yes they need the Pope but not because they are in schism. They did what they felt was right at the time. I feel that the original Apostolic sees, of which Rome is but one, should have be in charge of governing their own suri iuris. Yet, like any organization it needs a head to put people on the right path and solve disputes. In this case that is the Pope. Now note this is where my thinking differs from some. The Pope as the head of the Catholic church should reside at the Vatican in Rome as a Headquarters of the faith. But, if he wishes to move the Headquarters elsewhere he as Pope should be allowed to do so. Also The Pope should be there to settle disputes between the Patriarchs and lead his own suri iuris nothing else. He should not be allowed to dictate what the other Patriarchs do when its within the scope of their own Apostolic sees. As each see has authority delegated through the various Apostles that created the Apostolic sees. Again this is just my opinion.

 

[Peter_J]

Hello Peter. What you’ve posted may be true, but that’s a funny thing about the Great Schism: Not only did the Orthodox break communion with the Church in Rome, but the Church in Rome broke communion with the Orthodox. There were mutual communications, remember? While those communications may have been officially lifted back in the 1960s, we remain mutually outside of communion with one another because of doctrinal differences that date back centuries, in some cases to times well before the “official” date of the Schism itself.

In fact, if you’ve read Orthodox apologetics, no doubt you have come across writings on the “orthodox era” of Rome, before the changing of the Creed, before Papal Infalibility, Universal Juristiction, and the Immaculate Conception became irrefutable dogma for those in union with Rome.

I can understand what you’re saying, but I don’t see how it addresses my post:

Hi dzheremi. I don’t want to get into a debate with you over the word “fine”; but I’d like to say that if the Orthodox have “done fine”, it’s largely due to the fact that they’ve kept things largely the same since the first millennium (at which time they were in full communion with the Pope).

(BTW, the think you mean excommunications. )

 

[Peter_J]

But, if he wishes to move the Headquarters elsewhere he as Pope should be allowed to do so.

Hi gmcbroom. On this point ^^ I agree with you 100%. In fact, that’s how Rome came to be the headquarters in the first place: St. Peter, the first Pope and the Bishop of Antioch, moved to Rome and became its bishop, and his successors are still there today.

 

[Hesychios]

Infallibility doesn’t have anything to do with changing anything, but defining things on matters of Faith and Morals. Both the Church in Council and the Pope when speaking Ex-Cathedra have the promise of Infallibility.

This is an ultramontanist myth.

There had never been an application of this apparent authority until the 19th century.

No bishop, no churchman of any sort, declared Christian dogma upon his authority alone except in those instances where heretics were teaching new things. The bishops of Rome only began to do so in 1854AD, without the benefit of prior approval by a church council of bishops.

For example, when the Church defined “Trinity” to explain clearly the Christian belief of God - that there is only One God and that He is 3 Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It was something that had been handed down for centuries, but some confusion arose in the matter - specifically within the mind and teachings of Bishop Arius who began to teach that Jesus was not God. The Pope called a Council and the Bishops got together and with the direction of the Holy Spirit, they made an Infallible statement about God. They did not change anything, but simply infallibily defined the teaching of the Church.

No Pope called this council, you are mistaken.

At best (if it were true) this argument would help bolster the concept of Papal Universal Jurisdiction, not Papal Infallibility (the actual decisions were still the work of a council). Considering that the Pope did not actually call councils at the time does not lend credence to even this much authority.

No Bishop of Roma called any of the seven councils, the one’s pertaining to this matter (Nicea and Constantinople) were called by the emperors Constantine and Theodosios respectively (the bishops of Roma had no say in the matter). The emperors interest was purely political and self-serving, they desired a united Christian faith to help hold the diverse people together as one nation.

The resulting Councils are a good demonstration of the conciliar nature of the church. The infallibility of the church… the mind of the church… is expressed through the entire church, and this ideally seems best revealed by a council of the bishops together, across synodal lines meeting simultaneously (which is why the Latin church copied the model for itself later). All that remains is for the local synods to subsequently affirm the decision of the gathered bishops, and agree to teach accordingly.

Conciliarity is the earlier form of church governance, and still operative in the Orthodox east. Even more telling, the non-Calcedonians (on their own since 451AD) are also conciliar, it is what they knew and inherited from the church before the sad dispute which separated them from your church and mine. Conciliarity in the west died with the Council of Basil, and now is considered a type of heresy in the western church.

The ultramontanist Papacy is a new (post-schism, post council of Constance) thing.

BTW, I believe Arius was a priest when he proclaimed his own theology. I don’t know if he ever became a bishop.

The Pope has the same authority and has exercised it on a couple of occasions.

As stated above, this is a 19th century novelty.

Interestingly, it has only been invoked twice (the first time [1854AD] before the Pope was even authorized by his church to do so) and both times not on Christological matters, but Mariological ones, which seems to be some sort of abuse of the justification for such a power.

 

[Hesychios]

Infallibility doesn’t have anything to do with changing anything, but defining things on matters of Faith and Morals. Both the Church in Council and the Pope when speaking Ex-Cathedra have the promise of Infallibility.

This is an ultramontanist myth.

There had never been an application of this apparent authority until the 19th century.

No bishop, no churchman of any sort, declared Christian dogma upon his authority alone except in those instances where heretics were teaching new things. The bishops of Rome only began to do so in 1854AD, without the benefit of prior approval by a church council of bishops.

For example, when the Church defined “Trinity” to explain clearly the Christian belief of God - that there is only One God and that He is 3 Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It was something that had been handed down for centuries, but some confusion arose in the matter - specifically within the mind and teachings of Bishop Arius who began to teach that Jesus was not God. The Pope called a Council and the Bishops got together and with the direction of the Holy Spirit, they made an Infallible statement about God. They did not change anything, but simply infallibily defined the teaching of the Church.

No Pope called this council, you are mistaken.

At best (if it were true) this argument would help bolster the concept of Papal Universal Jurisdiction, not Papal Infallibility (the actual decisions were still the work of a council). Considering that the Pope did not actually call councils at the time does not lend credence to even this much authority.

No Bishop of Roma called any of the seven councils, the one’s pertaining to this matter (Nicea and Constantinople) were called by the emperors Constantine and Theodosios respectively (the bishops of Roma had no say in the matter). The emperors interest was purely political and self-serving, they desired a united Christian faith to help hold the diverse people together as one nation.

The resulting Councils are a good demonstration of the conciliar nature of the church. The infallibility of the church… the mind of the church… is expressed through the entire church, and this ideally seems best revealed by a council of the bishops together, across synodal lines meeting simultaneously (which is why the Latin church copied the model for itself later). All that remains is for the local synods to subsequently affirm the decision of the gathered bishops, and agree to teach accordingly.

Conciliarity is the earlier form of church governance, and still operative in the Orthodox east. Even more telling, the non-Calcedonians (on their own since 451AD) are also conciliar, it is what they knew and inherited from the church before the sad dispute which separated them from your church and mine. Conciliarity in the west died with the Council of Basil, and now is considered a type of heresy in the western church.

The ultramontanist Papacy is a new (post-schism, post council of Constance) thing.

BTW, I believe Arius was a priest when he proclaimed his own theology. I don’t know if he ever became a bishop.

The Pope has the same authority and has exercised it on a couple of occasions.

As stated above, this is a 19th century novelty.

Interestingly, it has only been invoked twice (the first time [1854AD] before the Pope was even authorized by his church to do so) and both times not on Christological matters, but Mariological ones, which seems to be some sort of abuse of the justification for such a power.

 

[nickj]

“When Saint Helen, mother of Emperor Constantine the Great, visiting the Holy Land and seeking the True Cross upon which Jesus was crucified, found the Precious and Life-Giving Cross, the Cross was venerated by all the faithful in many public processions. Many faithful would come to touch the Holy Cross for blesssing and healing. It was customary to touch the Wood of Life three times (as a confession of faith in the Holy Trinity). This act of touching the True Cross became the earliest recorded histories of “knocking on wood.” This history, alas, has nothing to do with the Rosary since the Rosary is a much later innovation. Whenever the Holy Cross was put forth for public veneration, touching it, or as English translations render it “knocking,” became common liturgical practice. Once the Holy Cross was transferred to Constantinople and placed in the Great Church of the Holy Wisdom (aka Saint Sophia), Christians continued this piety by touching or knocking on any cross or crucifix (wood was the medium of the day) for blessings and healings. This ancient tradition has been with us for over 1,600 years and has been a pious tradition to this day where people tend to touch anything made of wood … but all interpretations of this behavior point back directly to Jerusalem in the 4th century AD and the True Cross. No doubt, wooden prayer beads may have become a customary item for similar veneration, but historically much later.”

Yoga is a way of life, an art of righteous living or an integrated system for the benefit of the body, mind and inner spirit. This art originated, was perfected and practiced in India thousands of years ago. The references to yoga are available in ‘Upanishads’ and ‘Puranas’ composed by Indian Aryans in the later Vedic and post- Vedic period. The main credit for systematizing yoga goes to Patanjali who wrote ‘Yoga Sutra’, two thousand Years ago. He described the principles of the full eight fold yogic discipline. He composed the treatise in brief code words known as ‘Sutras’. ‘Yoga Sutra’ is the most important basic text on Yoga. yoga retreat It is through this basic treatise that the essential message of yoga spread throughout the world.

 

[Mickey]

Yoga is a way of life

Your post has nothing to do with the subject. Are you Roman Catholic? All new age practices, (including the hinduistic practice of yoga), are frowned upon by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

No Pope called this council, you are mistaken.

At best (if it were true) this argument would help bolster the concept of Papal Universal Jurisdiction, not Papal Infallibility (the actual decisions were still the work of a council). Considering that the Pope did not actually call councils at the time does not lend credence to even this much authority.

Hi Hesychios and SingleMomMonica,

I’m no expert, but I believe Hesychios is correct in saying that the First Council of Nicea wasn’t called by the Pope.

Needless to say, I don’t agree with him that “Considering that the Pope did not actually call councils at the time does not lend credence to even this much authority.”

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Peter

Hi Hesychios and SingleMomMonica,

I’m no expert, but I believe Hesychios is correct in saying that the First Council of Nicea wasn’t called by the Pope.

Needless to say, I don’t agree with him that “Considering that the Pope did not actually call councils at the time does not lend credence to even this much authority.”

To clarify my position, some people wish to point to the “fact” that the Popes convened ecumenical councils as some sort of proof that there is Papal infallibility. In other words, the implication is that if the church was infallible at the council, it was due to the special charism of the Pope.

Naturally, this argument does not make any sense when the Popes did not convene the councils or chair the proceedings. Whatever infallibility that can be attributed to the councils’ work in those cases cannot be shown to have anything whatsoever to do with the Pope. It has to be another expression of the church’s infallibility, one no longer recognized by the Latin church as valid.

It is like disowning one’s mother.

 

[MusicMan]

I wonder if any of the “Papal Authority From the Start” folks could tell me who the Pope was at the First Nicaean Council.

 

[John_Larocque]

Back in the good old days, the person who convened the councils was the Emperor of the Roman Empire. The Pope of Rome gave it his stamp of approval for orthodoxy, sometimes with reluctance. Rome never was happy when New Rome was added to second place after Rome - this was the first instance where a See wasn’t connected either to Jerusalem or a historical Petrine/Apostolic See (Rome, Alexandria, Antkioch). At some councils, Rome had a heavy presence, such as the one which condemned iconoclasm. Rome was consulted time and again when the East was caught up in various heresies, some of which were endorsed by heretical emperors, usually of Arian, iconoclast or Monophysite persuasion. One can read about the dual martyrdoms of Pope Martin and Maximus the Confessor over the monergist controversy, or the period when iconographer monks fled to the refuge of Rome to escape the persecution of their emperor.

The Roman Empire is no more, and there hasn’t been a full-blown ecumenical council since the days of the empire.

 

[MusicMan]

I’m starting to believe that all of this has happened before and all of this will happen again.

The original Church wasn’t one single, united Christianity like we Catholics like to think it always was. It was in groups and factions under a Patriarch, and the Churches were not united in the way that we think of or want to think they were.

The real difference is without political backings, Man has been freer to explore things that aren’t fitting with the status quo.

We have the Catholic Church under the Pope, the Oriental Orthodox under their Pope, the Eastern Orthodox Churches under their Patriarchs, the Anglican Communion under the Archbishop of Canterbury, and so forth. Not too dissimilar than early Christianity, just bigger and more divided, and with no political authority to unite it.

 

[kooldood]

Hmm, for some reason I can’t vote. Anyway, I choose option 1. I do not think that it affects your salvation (that you’re “in doom”) anymore than it affects the salvation of any non-Catholic person. Also, I’m sure that the Orthodox are doing “just fine” not being in union with the Bishop of Rome in the same sense that other churches and religions are doing “just fine” and are not in union with the Bishop of Rome. The issue then is one of schism, and of course our view that the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, even if Orthodox have valid sacraments and priesthood, as a few other churches do. I’m not sure I see the point in creating a “head bishop/patriarch” for the Orthodox anymore than what is already seen in the Ecumenical Patriarch.

hey theosis M. you can’t vote because you’re a trial member. like me

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I wonder if any of the “Papal Authority From the Start” folks could tell me who the Pope was at the First Nicaean Council.

**Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, oversaw the 318 Bishops as legate of Pope Sylvester. ** The Pope did not have to be there in person to oversee it, but the 318 Bishops who attended were like the Roman Centurion recognized the Authority of Jesus they trusted the Authority of the Pope: Luke 7:6-8. The Pope called it and made known this word to Bishop Hosius who relayed it during the Council.

Below is a quote that relates to this topic from This Rock Magazine found here on Catholic.com - my bolding
"According to the fourth-century historian Eusebius, Patriarch Dionysius of Antioch (died ca. 264) wrote to Pope Xystus II asking about rebaptism. He asked for advice from the Pope, he said, “for fear I am acting mistakenly.” Later the Patriarch wrote to Xystus’s successor, Pope Dionysius, informing him that the Sabellian heresy had appeared in his patriarchate. (This trinitarian heresy so emphasized the unity of the Godhead as to deny a distinction of divine Persons.) The Pope also wrote to two of his Egyptian bishops, emphasizing our Lord’s humanity. Certain persons in the see of Alexandria (perhaps those two bishops) reported to the Pope that Patriarch Dionysius was tending toward heretical views.

The Pope wrote the Egyptian bishops a letter detailing the errors of Sabellianism and what was later called Arianism and condemning them. He designated the term homoousios (“of the same substance”) as an appropriate safeguard of orthodox Christology. Note that sixty and more years before the Council of Nicaea, Pope Dionysius anticipated the Council’s work in condemning Arianism and in selecting the appropriate theological concept for the Church’s Christology.

The Pope wrote to Patriarch Dionysius, told him of the allegations against his orthodoxy, and asked for an explanation. Eastern Orthodox apologists tell us the Pope had no jurisdiction over other bishops. Here the Pope is calling on the second most important bishop of the Christian world to defend his orthodoxy. Did Patriarch Dionysius deny the Pope’s authority to bring him on the carpet, so to speak? Not at all. He welcomed the Pope’s inquiry and quickly wrote an explanation which the Pope accepted as satisfactory."

 

[Hesychios]

**Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, oversaw the 318 Bishops as legate of Pope Sylvester. ** The Pope did not have to be there in person…

Bishop Ossios was not a legate for the bishop of Roma.

It is not even clear that the two knew one another personally (although possible, they had no working relationship). Bishop Ossios was associated with Constantine, knew him well and functioned as a type of aide to him on Christian matters.

There is plenty of independent scholarship to illustrate this.

On your other point, it was commonplace for prelates to consult one another, they were writing letters back and forth on all occasions. There are examples of churchmen admonishing each other (including bishops of Roma) as well as seeking their advice. This process did not end in the east, bishops still seek advice and scold each other!

It is a sign of a healthy well-balanced church.

 

[MusicMan]

Nor did any of Pope Sylvester’s legates oversee the proceedings or the bishops. Of the bishops there, only 5 were from the Western Church.

But, nonetheless, the Council had a Pope, Patriarch Alexander, as its president. He turned over the presidential duties to Hosius because Alexander was the Chief Accuser in the matter of the Aryan Heresy.

I also find it interesting that when we read the early Church fathers, we so rarely read texts written by the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. Rather, we read documents written by the Patriarchs of the original Patriarchies and Constantinople. Hmmmm…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If anyone listens to the many misconceptions of the two dogmas that non-Catholics pretend exists, it would make sense to reject them. In fact, I used to believe in those misconceptions myself — until I started finding out about the dogmas on my own, reading Catholic sources (I mean real sources from the Magisterium, not from theologians nor from lay apologetics), instead of non-Catholic polemics.

Blessings

The universal jurisdiction of the Pope would in practice destroy the authority of the Orthodox hierarchs to govern the Churches. It would amount to Latinisation by the back door. Despite the supposed rejection of Latinisation. Rome should be judged not by its words, but by its deeds. ​