Do the Orthodox need a Pope?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

The Roman Pope is the Emperor of the Church, its well-nigh absolute lord and master. Such domination was forbidden by Jesus. The schism would not have occurred but for Rome’s lust to be first see. ​

 

[Mickey]

The Roman Pope is the Emperor of the Church, its well-nigh absolute lord and master. Such domination was forbidden by Jesus. The schism would not have occurred but for Rome’s lust to be first see. ​

Indeed.

 

[MusicMan]

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. ​

But as we have seen in recent years, the last ones of Pope John Paul II and especially Pope Benedict XVI’s Pontificate, there has been a trend with the Eastern Particular Churches to leave them be and let them govern themselves as the early Church Fathers intended. I believe there was recently a Patriarch of one of the Particular Churches elected by his Synod, and when it was submitted to Rome for the Pope’s required approval, Pope Benedict declined to address the matter. Not because he disagreed with their choice, but rather because he didn’t see it necessary for him to stamp their decision.

Really, it is only arrogant lay people, who have little understanding of Church history, perhaps something they read on EWTN or CAF, who are pushing for absolute Pontifical control. Pope Benedict XVI is probably the most open to “First Among Equals,” but they laity would go bonkers if it happened.

 

[Mickey]

Pope Benedict XVI is probably the most open to “First Among Equals,” but the laity would go bonkers if it happened.

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco*, CA: Ignatius Press]******

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

 

[SingleMomMonica]

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

My apologies for my earlier response. I can be quite obtuse sometimes. In fact, in this case I was so dense that I didn’t even realize that you were a priest, I thought you were simply showing a picture of a priest you knew and took on his name here as you really liked him or something. Regardless of my misunderstanding, I do sincerely apologize for being disrespectful.

Re-reading your response, I have an honest question coming for you though. **If it is true that the Orthodox were never “with Rome” at all in any sense that they should return thither, then please explain why are you personally in a Church that is in communion with Rome now? **

 

[jimmy]

My apologies for my earlier response. I can be quite obtuse sometimes. In fact, in this case I was so dense that I didn’t even realize that you were a priest, I thought you were simply showing a picture of a priest you knew and took on his name here as you really liked him or something. Regardless of my misunderstanding, I do sincerely apologize for being disrespectful.

Re-reading your response, I have an honest question coming for you though. **If it is true that the Orthodox were never “with Rome” at all in any sense that they should return thither, then please explain why are you personally in a Church that is in communion with Rome now? **

I think you are misunderstanding Fr Brendan’s post. He doesn’t deny that they were in union but only that the bishops were subject to the pope. Union was a matter of communion rather than subjection for the fathers. If one bishop excommunicated another he was simply breaking communion with him; he wasn’t claiming jurisdiction over him. The modern western conception of the pope is that he is supperior to all other bishops and can remove any of them at will. An excommunication has become a declaration of authority over the bishop and that particular Church.