Do the Orthodox need a Pope?

[Harpazo]

Glory to Jesus Christ,

Often I am accused by certain zealous Catholics that as an Orthodox, I am in certain doom because I do not “follow the Pope” or am not “in submission to Rome.” I guess that they assume the Orthodox are wandering around aimlessly without any roots.

What do you all think? I don’t care if you’re Orthodox, Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Atheist, Buddhist, or whatever. From your point of view, have the Orthodox done fine without an administrative head for the past 1000 years since East and West split? I would be inclined to say yes for several reasons, but this thread isn’t about my opinion.

Vote in the poll if you’d like and please share your comments. As usual, please keep it charitable. We are capable of civil discussion, believe it or not.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[TheosisM]

Glory to Jesus Christ,

Often I am accused by certain zealous Catholics that as an Orthodox, I am in certain doom because I do not “follow the Pope” or am not “in submission to Rome.” I guess that they assume the Orthodox are wandering around aimlessly without any roots.

What do you all think? I don’t care if you’re Orthodox, Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Atheist, Buddhist, or whatever. From your point of view, have the Orthodox done fine without an administrative head for the past 1000 years since East and West split? I would be inclined to say yes for several reasons, but this thread isn’t about my opinion.

Vote in the poll if you’d like and please share your comments. As usual, please keep it charitable. We are capable of civil discussion, believe it or not.

In Christ,
Andrew

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.

 

[JonNC]

Glory to Jesus Christ,

Often I am accused by certain zealous Catholics that as an Orthodox, I am in certain doom because I do not “follow the Pope” or am not “in submission to Rome.” I guess that they assume the Orthodox are wandering around aimlessly without any roots.

What do you all think? I don’t care if you’re Orthodox, Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Atheist, Buddhist, or whatever. From your point of view, have the Orthodox done fine without an administrative head for the past 1000 years since East and West split? I would be inclined to say yes for several reasons, but this thread isn’t about my opinion.

Vote in the poll if you’d like and please share your comments. As usual, please keep it charitable. We are capable of civil discussion, believe it or not.

In Christ,
Andrew

Hi Andrew,
I voted “nope”, but I believe that all of Christianity would benefit from a single leader. I think the Bishop of Rome is the logical choice for that position. The problem is coming to agreement on his authority, not to mention doctrinal differences.

Jon

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Glory to Jesus Christ,

Often I am accused by certain zealous Catholics that as an Orthodox, I am in certain doom because I do not “follow the Pope” or am not “in submission to Rome.” I guess that they assume the Orthodox are wandering around aimlessly without any roots.

What do you all think? I don’t care if you’re Orthodox, Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Atheist, Buddhist, or whatever. From your point of view, have the Orthodox done fine without an administrative head for the past 1000 years since East and West split? I would be inclined to say yes for several reasons, but this thread isn’t about my opinion.

Vote in the poll if you’d like and please share your comments. As usual, please keep it charitable. We are capable of civil discussion, believe it or not.

In Christ,
Andrew

The Coptic Orthodox already have a Pope - His Holiness Pope Shenouda III. copticchurch.net/topics/pope/

I think what you mean is should the Bishops, Patriarchs and Pope within the Orthodox Churches not currently in union with the Bishop of Rome reunited with the Pope of Rome the only Bishop which holds the Keys given only to St. Peter the Apostle by Jesus Christ and for them to acknowledge the Pope of Rome’s Primacy among them.
The answer to that is yes.

 

[JonNC]

I think what you mean is should the Bishops, Patriarchs and Pope within the Orthodox Churches not currently in union with the Bishop of Rome reunited with the Pope of Rome the only Bishop which holds the Keys given only to St. Peter the Apostle by Jesus Christ and for them to acknowledge the Pope of Rome’s Primacy among them.
The answer to that is yes.

If the Orthodox were to agree to this version of unity, I would be at RCIA the next day.

Jon

 

[dzheremi]

I voted “no, they’ve done fine without one” because it seems like…they’ve done fine without one.

Of course, as Monica points out, some of them already have one. I absolutely loooove HH Pope Shenouda. Not enough to deny Chalcedon, but still…he is a very wise and good man, and to me he is evidence that while the Orthodox may not need a Pope, it is not inherently bad to have one.

 

[James1982]

Given all of the betrayals, setbacks, and open persecution the Eastern Orthodox have endured through the centuries, I am sometimes amazed Eastern christianity has survived at all.

 

[eOxy]

I voted no, although we already have one.

Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria, and all Africa, His Beatitude Theodoros II.

patriarchateofalexandria.com/index.php?lang=en

We also have hundreds of direct successors of Apostole Peter, although the original and first Petrine See is that of Antioch. It’s written in the New Testament.

 

[AdrianP]

Orthodox Christians have Jesus as their leader and there are people in Orthodox Christianity able to speak with Jesus. I think for first 1000 years there were Patrairchs and they’ve done fine.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

If the Orthodox were to agree to this version of unity, I would be at RCIA the next day.

Jon

It seems we’ve been down this road before. Many Orthodox Churches already have, read history. Investigate the Rites and Churches within the Catholic Church.

But if those Orthodox Churches coming accepting the unity with Rome beginning 6 centuries ago isn’t enough for you…what would be?

I believe you mean what you say, but I want you to clarify your parameters for you to do that.

Are you waiting on the remaing Coptic Orthodox to join the existing Coptic Catholics?

Are you waiting for one or more of the 3 different Russian Orthodox Churches to acknowledge the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) and the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAR)?

Are you waiting for the Serbian Church to take that step?

Maybe you’re waiting on the Ecumenical Patriarch?

I am serious: Which of the Orthodox Churches reuniting with the Bishop of Rome would make you say, “okay, this is it, I’m going to follow that Orthodox Church’s example and recognize the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and become a Catholic”?

 

[TheosisM]

Orthodox Christians have Jesus as their leader and there are people in Orthodox Christianity able to speak with Jesus. I think for first 1000 years there were Patrairchs and they’ve done fine.

Yes, Catholics also have Jesus Christ as our leader, and we can all speak with Him.

 

[JonNC]

It seems we’ve been down this road before. Many Orthodox Churches already have, read history. Investigate the Rites and Churches within the Catholic Church.

But if those Orthodox Churches coming accepting the unity with Rome beginning 6 centuries ago isn’t enough for you…what would be?

I believe you mean what you say, but I want you to clarify your parameters for you to do that.

Are you waiting on the remaing Coptic Orthodox to join the existing Coptic Catholics?

Are you waiting for one or more of the 3 different Russian Orthodox Churches to acknowledge the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) and the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAR)?

Are you waiting for the Serbian Church to take that step?

Maybe you’re waiting on the Ecumenical Patriarch?

I am serious: Which of the Orthodox Churches reuniting with the Bishop of Rome would make you say, “okay, this is it, I’m going to follow that Orthodox Church’s example and recognize the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and become a Catholic”?

What would it take for the schism to be declared over? And if on the terms you stated before, I would consider it such an undeniable movement of the Holy Spirit, that I could nolonger justify remaining outside that reconciliation.

Jon

 

[AdrianP]

Yes, Catholics also have Jesus Christ as our leader, and we can all speak with Him.

Sorry, I meant like the way prophet Daniel spoke with God, seeing and hearing responses back.You’re right, ouir prayers are heard 24 hours out of 24.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Glory to Jesus Christ,

Often I am accused by certain zealous Catholics that as an Orthodox, I am in certain doom because I do not “follow the Pope” or am not “in submission to Rome.” I guess that they assume the Orthodox are wandering around aimlessly without any roots.

What do you all think? I don’t care if you’re Orthodox, Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Atheist, Buddhist, or whatever. From your point of view, have the Orthodox done fine without an administrative head for the past 1000 years since East and West split? I would be inclined to say yes for several reasons, but this thread isn’t about my opinion.

Vote in the poll if you’d like and please share your comments. As usual, please keep it charitable. We are capable of civil discussion, believe it or not.

In Christ,
Andrew

Christian unity is only possible in the Catholic Church under the Pope. I believe that it was for this reason that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom.

However, individual salvation is not determined by obedience to the pope.

I think the world would be a better place if all Christians were united in faith and morals, and I believe our witness would be much more powerful and effective.

 

[James1982]

The Coptic Orthodox already have a Pope - His Holiness Pope Shenouda III. copticchurch.net/topics/pope/

I think what you mean is should the Bishops, Patriarchs and Pope within the Orthodox Churches not currently in union with the Bishop of Rome reunited with the Pope of Rome the only Bishop which holds the Keys given only to St. Peter the Apostle by Jesus Christ and for them to acknowledge the Pope of Rome’s Primacy among them.
The answer to that is yes.

You’d be surprised how far a little conciliarism would get you in some circles.

 

[Cluny]

Why?

When you’re not going to change anything, nobody has to be infallible.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

When you’re not going to change anything, nobody has to be infallible.

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.

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.

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

 

[Nominefili]

I think that a church body needs leadership, and that leadership can come in many forms. Some Lutheran churches have an episcopate with apostolic succession, others take a more congregational form of government. Having a Pope seems to work great for Rome, but it seems that the Eastern Orthodox communion is doing just fine. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

 

[John_Larocque]

According to St. Cyprian, the bishops of the church also share in the Petrine succession and the St. Matthew text. Obviously, those of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch shared that in a special way. But looked at in that way, every bishop with apostolic succession can be seen as the head of a complete catholic church. He is responsible for every church within his domain, which commemorates him at every divine liturgy, and in which every parish or mission has a special chair (the “chair of Peter” to use Cyprian language) set aside for him. There is the expression, “Where Peter is, there is the church.” When you go into any city (and in the early church, every city had only one catholic-orthodox bishop), if you found the bishop, you found the catholic church.

Another user shook his head and wondered if this was a serious notion, but yes, it’s real. The concept of a “Eucharistic ecclesiology” - or “common union” - was expounded in an essay published in “The Primacy of Peter” and later the basis of a groundbreaking thesis published by the future Metropolitan of Pergamon, John Zizioulas. I read that Olivier Clement came up with an interesting formula for orthodoxy in the pre-schism church - the councils of the church (the voice of the bishops as it were), combined with the voice of Rome and the sensum fidelium. If you have all three, you have infallible teaching.

Can a form of universal ecclesiology - based on the consent of those who hold the “Chair of Peter” (the bishops), combined with the early practices of the church and ecumenical councils, be built up on top of the eucharistic model? Yes. Orthodox Patriarchs such as the patriarch of Moscow have a form of universal authority within the Russian church. Looked upon in that way, when the current Orthodox patriarchs meet with the Pope of Rome, they are meeting with their ontological equal.

Not sure this really answers the question the original poster raised.

Another poster - a Catholic - is sadly wrong. The Popes did teach, in pre-Vatican II days, that your salvation depended on your recognition of, and submission to the (singular) successor of Peter, the Pope of Rome.

 

[Harpazo]

Glory to Jesus Christ,

I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. I know about the title ‘Pope’ which is traditionally granted to Rome and the Patriarch of Alexandria. I’m talking about a head that has a type of “supremacy” and “universal jurisdiction.”

In Christ,
Andrew