How Do Orthodox Christians View the Pope?

[Hesychios]

I am done with this topic. It is pointless. I am not here to upset or offend Orthodoxs and I am sure I did,so I will leave it alone.

I am sorry if I have offended you my brother.

 

[Marybeloved]

and how does this help your case? They besought him to reconsider and rebuked him, that can be done by any bishop. He can certainly write to the pope telling him to reconsider (unless the pope just proclaim a dogma). Unless you can find a document saying that the pope does not have the authority to excommunicate the bishops then this does not help your case.
Ubenedictus

Agreed. St.Catherine, a lay woman, and others rebuked the Pope throughout History. The Papacy does not say that the Pope gets to disregard everyone else’s wishes, nor that he never makes mistakes, nor that he cannot be corrected on his mistakes. The quotation proves nothing with regards to the existence of the papacy.

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m interested to see more obscure such examples: let’s go beyond the now-clichéd incidents such as those involving St. Clement of Rome or St. Augustine.

I’m curious, Trebor. Have you read the letters of Pope St. Leo in the 5th Century?

 

[Nicea325]

I am sorry if I have offended you my brother.

On the contrary, you have not offended me, but I am sure I offended my Orthodox brethen.

 

[Trebor135]

I’m curious, Trebor. Have you read the letters of Pope St. Leo in the 5th Century?

Dearest fellow devotee of St. Mary–I have not read those letters, but I am aware that at least a couple Early Church popes made extraordinary (in the eyes of the Eastern Orthodox) claims about their office. Such data–from Sts. Leo and Gregory–is intriguing, but does not prove what the Catholic case requires: we would have to determine that the beliefs outlined in those letters were held by the rest of the Church at that time in order for them to have binding force on us in the present day.

 

[Marybeloved]

Dearest fellow devotee of St. Mary–I have not read those letters, but I am aware that at least a couple Early Church popes made extraordinary (in the eyes of the Eastern Orthodox) claims about their office. Such data–from Sts. Leo and Gregory–is intriguing, but does not prove what the Catholic case requires: we would have to determine that the beliefs outlined in those letters were held by the rest of the Church at that time in order for them to have binding force on us in the present day.

You haven’t read them? Here they are:ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xxviii.html You just click on ‘next’ button to read the rest. You asked to read other quotes beyond the ‘now-cliched st Clement and st. Augustine’, so enjoy!

I know about the argument they call “flowery language” of the early fathers either of the Pope’s own claims or in address to him by the other Patriarchs/Bishops. I honestly don’t know of any holder of an office that purported to act in a manner asserting these “flower-language” claims of them or by others, vis-a-vis the rest of the church other than the Bishop of Rome. Also, how would we go about determining the acceptance/non-acceptance of these claims by the rest of the church as you suggest? Perhaps by their reactions, outright statements of rejection of these claims, perhaps debates or perhaps by contrary teachings/clear contradictions of the claims in their teachings?–How exactly would we do this, do you think? And the principle as set forth by you above seems to almost say that if it was said by a Pope, it does not qualify as evidence of the mind or tradition of the early church, as it would in other cases…Such seems arbitrary to me. Especially when the letters, dogmatic as they claimed to be and indeed were so received, did not receive an answer in contradiction or correction. I saw a thread sometime back of a member of the Assyrian Church of the East which separated from the Church in the earliest centuries, and they were able to demonstrate from their own tradition a strong understanding of Peter and the Bishop of Rome- certainly nothing like a “first among equals” or “first in honor” alone. Should I chance to come across it, I’ll post/pm you a link.

Blessings,
She loves Mary- This one!

 

[rinnie]

Have a really Good Friday Rinnie!

Thank you my friend, And what a good Friday it is! It’s even Friday the 13!

But I love you my friend, and Love all of you guys!

Like right now I am watching hockey! Bet if you were all here, we would work everything out

Like this game, Pitt. came out kicking butt! But our best player of yesterday just put it too us!! We were tiied 5-5 it got ugly.

But he still loves us in his heart!! That is what its all about guys!! Love and respect for one another! Even though it may look like we are on different teams!!

Gotta Go!! God Bless!!

 

[Nine_Two]

Really, so we take quotes of Importancy to the Papacy, glad at least can see the importance by the way, and then you are saying some absurd proof it was practiced for all time.

It has been. History shows that beginning with Peter and to date with the current pope.

The Bishop of Rome was always important prior to the Great Schism. The issue we disagree on is just how important.

My very specific request for proof was to show Nicaea how absurd his own very specific request for proof was.

 

[Nine_Two]

Oh please! You do truly believe you have not attacked the CC? Please! Stop with the victim card. And you have yet provided a single shred of evidence the early church from the get-go set up “first among equals” now have you? Orthodox are the ones so adamant that is how the church functioned, operated and was set-up the first 1,000 years,so by all means show us all. You also cannot defend your ecclesiology either.

You accuse me of not backing it up and yet you are guilty of the same charge. God choosing one man as the head is a strawman argument? Yeah…sure. And the Dean of the College of Cardinals holds the same title. Okay…and? How does prove “first among equals” from the beginning?

How about reading what people are saying before you respond. None of your posts quoting mine have gotten close to what I said in the post before.

 

[Ubenedictus]

But you are reading words into the text which are not there, and ignoring other crucial words which are actually in the text. Eusebius says that Victor “attempted” to cut them off from the common union. He did not write that “he cut them off from the common union” because Victor did not have the power to do that unilaterally.[/QOUTE] Now who is reading words into the text? Where did d text say victor didnt have the power? He could be sharing his thought before making a decision (please note that this is very much allow). So where did you get the idea that he could not? And where did the father say he lacked the authority to do so? In other words he didnt want to be a tyrant and brought his case against the asain church to his brother and brought with it a punishment for what he thought wasnt orthodox, he was told instead that the asain position was far from what he thought.

Victor in the end didn’t succeed in his attempt because the other bishops, especially Irenaeus, did not support him (that is to say, the Asian bishops continued to celebrate Easter on 14 Nissan without being excommunicate, because the bishops did not support Victor).

 

[Ubenedictus]

You haven’t read them? Here they are:ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xxviii.html You just click on ‘next’ button to read the rest. You asked to read other quotes beyond the ‘now-cliched st Clement and st. Augustine’, so enjoy!

I know about the argument they call “flowery language” of the early fathers either of the Pope’s own claims or in address to him by the other Patriarchs/Bishops. I honestly don’t know of any holder of an office that purported to act in a manner asserting these “flower-language” claims of them or by others, vis-a-vis the rest of the church other than the Bishop of Rome. Also, how would we go about determining the acceptance/non-acceptance of these claims by the rest of the church as you suggest? Perhaps by their reactions, outright statements of rejection of these claims, perhaps debates or perhaps by contrary teachings/clear contradictions of the claims in their teachings?–How exactly would we do this, do you think? And the principle as set forth by you above seems to almost say that if it was said by a Pope, it does not qualify as evidence of the mind or tradition of the early church, as it would in other cases…Such seems arbitrary to me. Especially when the letters, dogmatic as they claimed to be and indeed were so received, did not receive an answer in contradiction or correction. I saw a thread sometime back of a member of the Assyrian Church of the East which separated from the Church in the earliest centuries, and they were able to demonstrate from their own tradition a strong understanding of Peter and the Bishop of Rome- certainly nothing like a “first among equals” or “first in honor” alone. Should I chance to come across it, I’ll post/pm you a link.

Blessings,
She loves Mary- This one!

marybeloved thanks for the link, those letters are beautiful. If you find the link please PM me. Lastly do you know why the thread ‘‘spilling or not spilling the seed’’ was closed? Peace.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Agreed. St.Catherine, a lay woman, and others rebuked the Pope throughout History. The Papacy does not say that the Pope gets to disregard everyone else’s wishes, nor that he never makes mistakes, nor that he cannot be corrected on his mistakes. The quotation proves nothing with regards to the existence of the papacy.

and not a prove against it. Thanks.
ubenedictus

 

[Marybeloved]

marybeloved thanks for the link, those letters are beautiful. If you find the link please PM me. Lastly do you know why the thread ‘‘spilling or not spilling the seed’’ was closed? Peace.
Ubenedictus

No I don’t- I went to sleep at about 1.00 am that day because I was caught up in all the heated debate on the thread, then when I woke up next morning and went to check on it, I found it closed . I think it may have been because it was a bit too graphic/explicit for the Mod’s taste, I got a warning about that language. But it was really something, that thread!

 

[Ubenedictus]

This is just a list of red herrings. A presidency of love is not disputed (or primacy if you will). The idea that Rome is the irreplaceable font of unity, divinely established by God is.

wow, wow, wow a headship to prevent division was ‘divinely established’ on peter. Did the headship stop with the apostles? Or was the headship of peter replace with another? So what is the agruement on whether there is a irreplaceable font of unity divinely established. I asked did peter as a font of unity end with the death of peter? If it did then we have a new agruement, if it didnt then pray tell me dear sir where is the headship in the church?
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

No I don’t- I went to sleep at about 1.00 am that day because I was caught up in all the heated debate on the thread, then when I woke up next morning and went to check on it, I found it closed . I think it may have been because it was a bit too graphic/explicit for the Mod’s taste, I got a warning about that language. But it was really something, that thread!

yeah it was really something.
it certainly wasnt a easy one for you.
Ubenedictus

 

[Marybeloved]

yeah it was really something.
it certainly wasnt a easy one for you.
Ubenedictus

No it wasn’t, lol! I know now not to speak too much about/against some sexual practices which some people really love, or I’ll get some fiery darts of anger sent my way .

 

[rinnie]

The Bishop of Rome was always important prior to the Great Schism. The issue we disagree on is just how important.

My very specific request for proof was to show Nicaea how absurd his own very specific request for proof was.

Yes I agree he was always very important and still is. Here is something to think about. God appointed 12 Apostles. Now they all have the Power of the Holy Spirit, we all agree iwth that. And together they all meet and make great decisions.

But the point still remains this, and think about this. Why did God not choose 13 instead of 12 then. or 11 instead of 12? Do you see what I am saying. If in a vote thee is a problem they would be dead locked would they not? Someone would have to choose. WHO! If they are all completely equal?

Now if no one would choose nothing would ever get settled. There would have to be authority from ONE of them. There Has to be.

Because people forget, just because the Apostles and Bishiops of today have the power of the Holy Spirit does not make them perfect. They still are human in every way. They are not puppets who go into a room and all agree on everything.

That is why the Pope is needed to make the final decision when they cannot completely agree on a matter. It is then the Pope prays on the matter and then gets the right answer from God, and it never changes.

What he has to do is truly pray, and study the answer also. Because when he makes a final decision it cannot disagree with any kind of scripture in anyway.

But that is where the keys come into play, he has the final say, It has been this way from the beginning of time.

Also look at history, why are the popes name given and why can they all be traced? What is the reason for this, is there is not some kind of authority or special power? Why are they not ALL called Popes? Why was St John and St Paul also called Popes like St Peter?

But common sense tells us there Has to be someone to make the final decision because of the number of 12.

 

[rinnie]

I know I can never change your mind, but I do feel it is my duty to show why and how the Pope does indeed have authority. Here are a few example why my Church teaches what it does.

In acts Peter exercise the power to bind and loose by admitting the first gentiles into the church after receiving a vision from Christ to do so. Now think about this the other Apostles raised objections about doing so, But what happened? They accepted Peters decision. Think about this Peter did not say lets vote, lets discuss this. He said matter settled. Could you show me any other Apostles who made a decision on their own as Peter did? Or to date even.

His explanation was accepted and the Church was Catholic.

Look is where he declares that the Jewish Christians need not follow the law of Moses as regards to circumcision. It accepted by the first church council at Jerusalem in slilence without debate and sent out by letter to the Churchs as the decision by the Holy Spirit. Again why? Without debate? Simple Peter used the authority given to him by Christ.

This commision by Christ was to be held out until the end of age. This office of Pope was to be continued, the Apostles knew this. It is evident in the writings of the early Church Fathers. St Clement around 80 A.D. concerning a dispute over removing some of the clergy noted. Our Apostles KNEW through our Lord Jesus there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason therefore having received perfect knowledge they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards the further provision that if they should die other men should succeed to their ministry.

 

[Ubenedictus]

No it wasn’t, lol! I know now not to speak too much about/against some sexual practices which some people really love, or I’ll get some fiery darts of anger sent my way .

we learn every day, you just learnt that people do not like it when you try to burst their bubble. Im sure you’re repentant lol, so you wont be mortally wounded by the darts. :stretcher:this doesnt look too good.
Ubenedictus