I never said that he was the supreme pontiff of all the Orthodox Churches, I’m just trying to point out that there are similarities (ecclesiologically) between us and the Syriac Orthodox Church (not debating how much similarity), which is an apostolic church. I guess the usage of Supreme pontiff of the** Universal **Syriac Orthodox Church kind of gives that impression.What on earth…?
What could HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas possibly have to do with supporting Roman claims? That makes no sense at all.
Do you realize, Josie, that the excerpt you’ve quote is relating the Patriarch’s leadership to HIS OWN PARTICULAR CHURCH (that is to say, the Syriac Orthodox Church), not the entire Orthodox Church throughout the world? So it’s not really comparable to Rome’s Papal claims at all? It would be if Rome concerned itself only with the governance/overseeing of Latin/Roman churches within its traditional territories (i.e., the West, which the Roman Pope is rightly called the Patriarch of), but that’s not what Rome claims.
My brother…I beg your pardon? Imposed? Where are sources confirming such a statement, the Church of Rome “imposed” it on the Eastern Rites? Believing that there can be only one head is not unique to Rome alone because Jesus own faith and culture had one head figure called a king. When did Jesus complain about it? In Heaven there is one head figure-God. I am curious to know where the belief of a “democracy” was establised by Christ?
JL: I suggest the reason is because they recognize Rome as the see of Peter. And no other Apostolic church could seriously claim to be Universal Pastor. Only one was given the keys.
Universal Pastor? What was St. Mark doing with St. Peter preaching in Rome before going to Libya (his home) and Egypt, then? And St. Thomas in India and Iraq? And St. Jude and St. Bartholomew in Armenia? The apostles (plural) did indeed preach universally, but that is not anything that Rome (or Antioch) via St. Peter nor Constantinople via St. Andrew could claim exclusively. Indeed, the Lord Christ sent all His holy apostles out to baptize all nations into the one faith. That’s what they all did. The commission itself is universal, and the faith it brought to the world is universal. Doesn’t it therefore make more sense to say that all Apostolic Churches, by virtue of their apostolic foundations, are “universal pastors”?
I am not projecting anything onto the Syriac Orthodox Church, you assume way too much from my post, i.e., Hesychios said in his original post that there is no Apostolic Church which proclaims a singular head, and I noted that there is. Obviously, it is not in the same capacity (I never said it was), but nonetheless within its own domain there is a singular head, i.e., a supreme pontiff of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church (it is a sort of micro version if you will of the macro version in the Catholic Church).
I never said that HH Mor Ignatius Zakka rules in the same manner as the Roman pontiff or is considered “universal” as the Roman pontiff “claims to be.”
I never intended for my post to mean that there was a universal bishop/supreme pontiff over all other Orthodox churches.
:yup:
The CC uses’s Matthew and John to support its claim.
The commission to baptize pertains to all Christians, not just pastors. So this does not prove that Peter did not have special authority over other Apostles.
BZzzzt!
JL: They were preaching the same gospel in union with the holder of the keys no matter where they were. The apostles had the gift of revelation their successors didn’t. I think you have given the best reason, for the need, of a universal pastor with the following post.
JL: You are exactly right that’s the problem there is no universal Orthodox pastor. No visible rock of unity, who can intervene with authority and declare a deposition illegal. We see this intervention with Clement and the Corinthians. No universal pastor leaves the national church at the mercy of a dictator. Without unity, with the one holder of the keys, we see national churches doing nothing or speaking individually, instead of as one body.
JL: I along with many are praying for the Coptic Church in Egypt and the election of a new pope.
LOL, As if the pope truly by himself runs a church numbering nearly a billion people. Headship is not the same as ‘running’ something, nor even leading it. It is a position of unique service that can be observed in the gospels and Acts themselves. Have there been differing interpretations and/or abuses about what this role really is about, where it begins and ends over the years? Undoubtedly (I’m no scholar). But is it really the contention of EO that Christ intended for the Church to consist of 12+ overlapping, often squabbling organizations all too often more interested in arguing with each other than evangelizing the world? Is that the light on the hill, the salt of the earth we were called to be? I’m thinking not. As I see it, this idea of a multiplicity of independent churches ‘in communion’ with each other, but differing on so many issues that we effectively cancel each other out as witnesses to the gospel is a design for failure. It reeks of a house divided against itself.
I agree that it is a silly idea.
Please don’t twist my words to say the opposite of what I intended them to. I wrote that as an example to prove how, though we too have a Pope and he does have authority within our church and a certain amount of deference is paid to him within the communion by virtue of his place in it, it is simply not within the apostolic understanding of the Church to extrapolate based on that various claims about the Papal office being the source of all sorts of powers unique to it (infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc). It is not a question of whether or not such powers might come in handy in a particular situation. Our understanding of what the church is and how it works is not a matter of political convenience.
I bought it at the Orthodox Church bookstore while I was there.