How Do Orthodox Christians View the Pope?

[Nicea325]

Victor? You mean the guy who tried to tell Polycrates when to celebrate Easter? That is definitely not a good example to support your case.

And it certainly isn’t a good case to rebuke the papacy either.

Again…why would be impossible for God to have given one man the authority to be head over others? Does not scripture state all authority whether (religious or secular) is given by God? Does not Romans state it? I do not read Jesus complaining about Ceasar being the emperor of entire empire.

 

[Cavaradossi]

And it certainly isn’t a good case to rebuke the papacy either.

1. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.
2. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply **rebuking **Victor.
3. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:

-Eusebius, Church history, book V, chapter 24.
newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm

 

[Hesychios]

1. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.
2. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply **rebuking **Victor.
3. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:-Eusebius, Church history, book V, chapter 24.
   newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm

It should also be noted that the Quartodeciman issue was eventually resolved, 130 years or more later. In other words the churches of Asia continued their practice until the Council of Nicea, when they with the other churches mutually agreed in the spirit of fraternal respect.

Secondly, such an excommunication, if it had been successful, would have not had the same consequences most Roman Catholics assume it would have had. He did not have the authority to “throw them out of the church”. What he would have done was break communion between two ancient synods, and the other ancient synods would more than likely have tried to stay in communion with both parties of the dispute and ride it out. An uneasy and unhappy situation, but not unique.

Today, if the Pope should excommunicate someone or some group, other Roman Catholics will think those people are out of the church and perhaps not even catholics. Today it is inconceivable that any group of Roman Catholic bishops anywhere would challenge a Pope or one of his Congregations over any such issue yo the point of rebuking him and correcting him, because they simply do not have the same understanding of the Papacy that the early church had universally.

This issue and how it is viewed today can be one of the best case studies over how the idea of Papacy has evolved in the western church, and a pretty good example of how many Roman Catholics telescope history, projecting their modern notions of Papacy and new ideas back into the past.

 

[Nine_Two]

Am I for real? So it is impossible for God Himself to have chosen one man to be head over others? SERIOUSLY? Are you for real?

And you continue to make up strawman arguments that no one even came close to giving.
No one is arguing what is possible or impossible for God. Or are you arguing that it is impossible for God to bake a cake that my dog would love?

The argument is what God did do.

And please do share the “first” among equals? First means first,so do share how all are equal?

That was already explained to you. The Dean of the College of Cardinals actually holds the term as a title.

But I take it you don’t have the required evidence to back up your ecclesiology? Are we to assume from this that you are wrong, or just that you’ve been overzealous in your attacks on the Orthodox Church, and its ecclesiology?

 

[Ubenedictus]

I know you apologised but i have some ?

The Pope is the only one that claims that title because the West developed a dissorted ecclesiology.

Take it as you may, but I think Rome developed that sense of superiority among other Churches (that doesn’t exist) based on this:

-Capital of the Empire

I think this is for constantinople, check what pope damascus thinks.

-Founded by Blessed Peter and Paul
-Was the beloved Church (“presides in Love”)

this is true she preside and was founded on the apostles peter and paul

-The only Apostolic Throne in the West

Mix that with a bad understanding of ecclesiology and you get what the Bishop of Rome is today, a super bishop or bishop of bishops.

Now where did you get this idea? ‘a super bishop’? Peter was head to prevent division does that make him a super apostle? Well a church father said the apostolic stlye was headship so that is really bad right? Maybe your understand may be label bad by others.

GThe technical reason other bishops (in the RCC) can’t claim the title of Pope is because after Rome stole that title from Alexandria, Rome reserved that title for himself.

please provide the proof of this ‘stealing’ and explain the meaning.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

And you continue to make up strawman arguments that no one even came close to giving.
No one is arguing what is possible or impossible for God. Or are you arguing that it is impossible for God to bake a cake that my dog would love?

The argument is what God did do.

wow! Did you miss th quote (with context) of the early father who wrote that Peter was chosen by Christ (GOD) to be head to prevent division? Christ appointed one man peter to confirm his brother to be head of the brotherhood, unless you believe that ended with the apostles.
Ubenedictus

 

[rinnie]

Good job with misquoting. That isn’t what I asked you to show me. It also demonstrates how hopelessly the point wizzed over your head there.

You ask for the exact words “First Among Equals” in patristics, so I ask you for an exact demonstration of the Pope’s supreme power in the early church.

Since you can’t come up with that you reform my question into something that obviously did happen, and that most every individual who knows much about the early Church would agree with - including in this thread.

So I ask again, are you for real?

You can site the Father of the Church throughout the early centuries for days, but can you provide me ONE TESTIMONY of them denying this Primacy?

Even when there were disputed matters such as involved St Cyprian of Carthage and the Pope he still insisted on the primacy, writing in 255 or 256AD.

Now with that said, answer me this, by the way you have never responded to any questions I asked you with scripture provided

So let me ask again, maybe in another way.

Refute this:

When Jesus met Simon he said Shimon Kephas which literally means HEAR the ROCK!
Do you feel there was a reason for Jesus to do this? If not why did he do this? Why did he name him HEAR the ROCK??

Now on this ROCK I will build!!

Now feed my sheep, tend my sheep. Feed in John is boskein which means in Jewish Spiritual Nourishment. Tend is greek for Pormanan which means RULE!

Explain this to me!

 

[Ubenedictus]

1. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.
2. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply **rebuking **Victor.
3. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:

-Eusebius, Church history, book V, chapter 24.
newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm

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

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

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. 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). Also, the bishops did not beseech him to “reconsider”, they "besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and brotherly love (in other words, they rebuked him for disturbing the peace of the Church). You are playing right into Hesychios’ point about trying to read a modern papacy into ancient events.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You can site the Father of the Church throughout the early centuries for days, but can you provide me ONE TESTIMONY of them denying this Primacy?

Even when there were disputed matters such as involved St Cyprian of Carthage and the Pope he still insisted on the primacy, writing in 255 or 256AD.

Now with that said, answer me this, by the way you have never responded to any questions I asked you with scripture provided

So let me ask again, maybe in another way.

Refute this:

When Jesus met Simon he said Shimon Kephas which literally means HEAR the ROCK!
Do you feel there was a reason for Jesus to do this? If not why did he do this? Why did he name him HEAR the ROCK??

Now on this ROCK I will build!!

Now feed my sheep, tend my sheep. Feed in John is boskein which means in Jewish Spiritual Nourishment. Tend is greek for Pormanan which means RULE!

Explain this to me!

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.

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

Exactly.

The problem people seem to have is that they take quotes that show the importance of the papacy, run with them, and turn them into some absurd proof that the modern status quo has been practiced for all time.

 

[Nicea325]

1. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.
2. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply **rebuking **Victor.
3. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:

-Eusebius, Church history, book V, chapter 24.
newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm

Uhhhhh…he was not rebuking his primacy,but his decision to cut them off.
Where does Irenaeus rebuke his primacy? He says nothing of the sort about Victor’s primacy.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Red herrings? According to you and other Orthodoxs. More like dodges and excuses to really confront the issue. And why? Because it conflicts with your “first” among equals position.

 

[Nicea325]

Exactly.

The problem people seem to have is that they take quotes that show the importance of the papacy, run with them, and turn them into some absurd proof that the modern status quo has been practiced for all time.

Exactly! And the odd thing is that Orthodox do the same and turn them into asburd proof that the modern status quo of “first among equals” has been practiced for all time. And?

 

[Nicea325]

And you continue to make up strawman arguments that no one even came close to giving.
No one is arguing what is possible or impossible for God. Or are you arguing that it is impossible for God to bake a cake that my dog would love?

The argument is what God did do.

That was already explained to you. The Dean of the College of Cardinals actually holds the term as a title.

But I take it you don’t have the required evidence to back up your ecclesiology? Are we to assume from this that you are wrong, or just that you’ve been overzealous in your attacks on the Orthodox Church, and its ecclesiology?

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?

 

[rinnie]

Exactly.

The problem people seem to have is that they take quotes that show the importance of the papacy, run with them, and turn them into some absurd proof that the modern status quo has been practiced for all time.

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.

 

[rinnie]

The Individual Bishops of the Universal Church can only exercise the Infallible Sacred iwth the Participation of the Roman Pontiff. Without the POPE there IS NO Sacred Magisterium.

Wonder why that is?

 

[Nicea325]

The Individual Bishops of the Universal Church can only exercise the Infallible Sacred iwth the Participation of the Roman Pontiff. Without the POPE there IS NO Sacred Magisterium.

Wonder why that is?

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.

 

[rinnie]

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 agree, I sure hope I didn’t offend anyone. If so it was not my intention I never truly understood why we still are not one.

I meam we have so much more in common then not.

Oh well its FRIDAY!!:extrahappy: and the weekends go SO FAST!! Have a great one everyone and May God bless us all and keep us close to his heart and grant us the grace to all do what he wants us to do to glorify him!

 

[Hesychios]

I agree, I sure hope I didn’t offend anyone. If so it was not my intention I never truly understood why we still are not one.

I meam we have so much more in common then not.

Oh well its FRIDAY!!:extrahappy: and the weekends go SO FAST!! Have a great one everyone and May God bless us all and keep us close to his heart and grant us the grace to all do what he wants us to do to glorify him!

Have a really Good Friday Rinnie!