Do the Orthodox need a Pope?

[AdrianP]

To this question must respond GOD.

 

[youngsaint]

No, they can’t do … anything, no councils, no filter for any beliefs that come in through their church. ALL the other churches have gone astray in their doctrinal teachings, ALL of them. Why? because they don’t follow the successor of Jesus himself. Its like a country without a government, people just do and believe what they want.

 

[dzheremi]

Where do you get the idea that people just do or believe whatever they want in Orthodoxy, Youngsaint? I’m not even Orthodox and I know that that’s not how it goes. Orthodoxy maybe even more than Catholicism is bounded by unity of faith across all cultures. It is not a halfway house for whatever ideas may be popular with the laypeople, which is more than can be said for Catholicism in some respects.

I respect and support the office of the Pope, but would never do so by slandering the Orthodox Church. You can do one without doing the other, y’know. :twocents:

 

[Harpazo]

No, they can’t do … anything, no councils, no filter for any beliefs that come in through their church. ALL the other churches have gone astray in their doctrinal teachings, ALL of them. Why? because they don’t follow the successor of Jesus himself. Its like a country without a government, people just do and believe what they want.

Eh, not quite.

But thanks for participating!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[abucs]

I think whether or not the Orthodox churches have done well is a matter for the members of the different orthodox churches to address.

 

[Louie1983]

i voted yes, they must return to rome!

i’ve had many a debate with my orthodox brethren on this forum about this subject. The church on earth was entrusted to peter and his authority, not to the scores of bishops but to one leader who professed that Jesus “was the son of the living God”.

Jesus made it very clear in scripture what he wanted, his church built on the rock that is peter!

 

[Frbrendan]

…

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.

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.

i voted yes, they must return to rome!

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

 

[mardukm]

I believe the Orthodox need not a Pope, but the Pope - the bishop of Rome.

But I don’t think they need it in the sense of an authoritarian figure, but according to the way it was before the idea of jurisdictionalism was imposed on the Church in the fourth century. The Papacy is an office of solicitude and care, not one of micromanagement. He is the “Servant of the Servants of God.”

Closely connected with this, it goes without saying that the Orthodox need the Pope because that is the order of the Church as Jesus established it. Jesus Christ stated that he would establish set one servant (singular) over his household (singular) to feed it (Matthew 25). We know who this one servant was (John 21). By the principle of apostolic succession, this servantship was passed on in the Church down through the centuries (not to mention the fact that Jesus predicted in Matthew 25 that this servant would exist when He returns).

That reason alone - that Jesus established it - should be sufficient for anyone to accept the office of the papacy.

The argument that “we’ve done fine without it” is beside the point, and is really not relevant. I’m sure many protestants and non-Christians feel the same way about themselves and their communities. The main point, and perhaps the only point worth considering, is the fact that Jesus established it for the upbuilding of the body of Christ.

Blessings

P.S. I did not vote. The option provided closest to what I have in mind (option #1) is too authoritarian in its tone. I would simply say, “the Church as a whole needs the Servant who Christ established to feed his household.”

 

[Louie1983]

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.

he didn’t need to summon the councils, but in order for the councils to be approved the pope had to approve the conciliar documents. no council was complete without this.

 

[mardukm]

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.

Father, bless! AND WELCOME!!!

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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.

Isn’t that the ecclesiology proposed by Vatican 2? Of course, we cannot fail to recognize the head bishop, as the Apostolic Canon exhorts us to do.

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.

I pray for the day when we will no longer speak of the Pope as if he was an entity separate from the Council. I understand that we - Catholic and Orthodox alike - are currently obliged to speak of “the Pope and the Council,” given the real and (mostly) pretended distinctions that have been imposed by the polemics of centuries. But I seriously hope that one day, we can speak of a Council of bishops without having to point out that such a body, by its very definition, must have a head.

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.

The Council of Trent taught that, “our Savior left the Eucharist in his Church as a symbol of the unity and love which he desired to unify and unite all Christians…a symbol of that one body of which he is the head. He willed that we, as members of this body, should be united to it by firm bonds of faith, hope, and love…”

I think the Eucharistic model has always been present in the Catholic Church. It’s just that polemics over certain other teachings (particularly the papacy) were louder.

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.

ALL bishops are ontologically equal. But not all bishops have the same responsibilities in the Church.

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.

Nothing wrong with that if one believes that Rome is the standard of orthodoxy - i.e., submission to the Pope would simply be equivalent to submission to Truth. It would be a problem if one interprets submission to the Pope as submission to a monarch whose every word is the rule of law. I truly believe we are beyond those medieval (mis)conceptions of the papacy.

Blessings

 

[SingleMomMonica]

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.

A little re-writing of history makes you feel better?

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

St. John Chrysostom disagrees with you, at least according to his writings.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Monica,

I feel your response to Father Brendan was a bit rude. Our priests deserve more respect.

Blessings

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

Absolutely not - they would be insane to accept the dogmas of Rome about the universal jurisdiction or the infallibility of the Popes.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

SingleMomMonica:

Originally Posted by Frbrendan forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
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.

*A little re-writing of history makes you feel better? *

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

St. John Chrysostom disagrees with you, at least according to his writings.

The priest is correct. Arius was a presbyter in the Church at Alexandria, during the episcopates of Alexander (bishop 312-328) & Athanasius (328-373). Arius first broached his ideas to his bishop in 318. As Arius died in 335, he was never bishop. Not there, or anywhere. And no pope summoned any of the seven first Councils - they were all seven of them summoned by the Emperor, and by no churchmen.​

Sorry, but some of us have actually studied this period; so we know what we are talking about.

 

[mardukm]

Absolutely not - they would be insane to accept the dogmas of Rome about the universal jurisdiction or the infallibility of the Popes.​

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

 

[Peter_J]

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

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).

 

[MusicMan]

Each of the Orthodox Churches have a central leader in their Patriarch. He serves for that Church similarly to the same way as a Prime Minister serves in the governing of a nation, with the Synod and his leadership working together. There is an Ecumenical Patriarch who is considered first among equals, but even he is accountable to his brother Patriarchs and his Synod.

No Orthodox Church has a Pope in the way that we think of the Pope of Rome to be. No Orthodox Church has needed one for the whole of Christian history because they developed administrative strictures that handle and affirm the dogmatic and doctrinal issues of the Church.

That is the biggest problem with the Papacy as it is currently understood. The Pope is accountable to no one on this Earth. We trust the Holy Spirit to guide him. We trust that he will listen to the guidance of the Spirit. But he is a man. He has no brother Patriarchs or Synods to check his actions. He is either right or wrong. That is a great deal of power and a great deal of responsibility. I think the real question here is whether or not mortal man is capable of managing that.

 

[dzheremi]

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).

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.

 

[mardukm]

Each of the Orthodox Churches have a central leader in their Patriarch. He serves for that Church similarly to the same way as a Prime Minister serves in the governing of a nation, with the Synod and his leadership working together. There is an Ecumenical Patriarch who is considered first among equals, but even he is accountable to his brother Patriarchs and his Synod.

In current EO ecclesiology, a Patriarch is not a Prime Minister, but a figurehead. He has no authority greater than his brother bishops, and only has jurisdiction in his local diocese as its bishop. This is different from the patristic model established by the Ecumenical Councils.

No Orthodox Church has a Pope in the way that we think of the Pope of Rome to be. No Orthodox Church has needed one for the whole of Christian history because they developed administrative strictures that handle and affirm the dogmatic and doctrinal issues of the Church.

The key word is “developed.” The ecclesiology of EO’xy today is not the same as what the early Fathers held. Also, the Eastern Orthodox Church has had an additional element in its history that has arguably worked in its favor - nationalism. Eastern Orthodoxy is so bound up in the national identity of its adherents that it has been difficult, if not impossible, for any “foreign” ideas to establish itself within its fold. This nationalistic element has its very bad effects as well, but conservatism is one of the good things about it. Combine this with the authoritarian secular regimes that Eastern Orthodoxy has historically found itself, and one can see that EO’xy has not changed that much primarily because she has not had the freedom to change. Of course, this does not mean that EO’xy has not had its fair share of dissensions and schisms within its fold.

That is the biggest problem with the Papacy as it is currently understood. The Pope is accountable to no one on this Earth. We trust the Holy Spirit to guide him. We trust that he will listen to the guidance of the Spirit. But he is a man. He has no brother Patriarchs or Synods to check his actions. He is either right or wrong. That is a great deal of power and a great deal of responsibility. I think the real question here is whether or not mortal man is capable of managing that.

I’d agree that such a perception of the papacy is a big problem. But I completely disagree with your statement that the Pope is not accountable to anyone on this earth. The actual teaching is that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone on this earth - effectively, that means that he cannot be deposed by anyone on this earth. That is different from being accountable. The Pope has several times in history been corrected by his brother bishops (not to mention non-bishops), and one or two times has been persuaded to abdicate. St. Bellarmine himself taught that the Pope has no authority to tear down the Church, and that if he ever teaches heresy, we are duty-bound to oppose him. But, according to Bellarmine, correcting the Pope is different from judging him.

Blessings