How Do Orthodox Christians View the Pope?

[Mickey]

It’s reactions like yours that really perpetuate hatred.

More nonsense.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

"The Roman Catholic view of the Church (ecclesiology) differs from the Orthodox teaching on this subject in several ways.

The Latins teach that the visible head of the Church is the Pope, the successor to St. Peter, who was appointed to that sacred position by the Lord Himself with the words, ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18).

The Pope is, then, ‘the Bishop of the Catholic Church’, her teacher, the vicar (agent, deputy) of Christ on earth. He is the interpreter of the Christian Tradition. When he speaks for the whole Church (ex cathedra), the Holy Spirit does not permit him to err. He is, therefore, infallible on matters of morals and doctrine. Other bishops are his lieutenants. He is the symbol of the episcopate’s unity.

The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The president of a synod of bishops is called archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom).

According to Latin ecclesiology, each local parish is part of the universal or whole Church. The totality of Catholic parishes form the Body of Christ on earth. This visible Body has a visible head, the Pope. This idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster. Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic authority if the Pope may contradict his orders. Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it.

Orthodoxy teaches that every bishop, ‘the living icon of Christ’, and his flock constitute the Church in a certain place; or, as St. Ignatius the God-bearer says, the Church of Christ is in the bishop, his priests and deacons, with the people, surrounding the Eucharist in the true faith. All bishops and their flocks so constituted, together composing the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In other words, there can be no Church without a bishop, no bishop without the Eucharist, and no bishop or Eucharist without the true faith, the Apostolic Faith, ‘the faith once delivered to the saints.’ (Jude 3) ‘The Church is in the bishop and the bishop in the Church’, wrote St. Cyprian of Carthage.

Put another way, there is no Church where there is no bishop, and there is no bishop where there is no succession of bishops from the Apostles (apostolic succession); and there can be no succession from the bishops without the faith of the Apostles.

Also, there can be no Church without the Eucharist, the Sacrament of unity, because the Church is formed through it. The Body and Blood of Christ unites the Faithful to God: This fellowship or koinonia is the whole purpose of Christianity. At the same time, there can be no Eucharist — and no other Mysteries — without a bishop who teaches the true faith to the baptized." - Dr. Fr. Michael Azkoul

home.comcast.net/~t.r.valentine/orthodoxy/texts/azkoul_differences.html

May I ask what may happen if a bishop subjected to heresy?

 

[mardukm]

More nonsense.

When someone extrapolates motives on a person for simply telling the truth, THAT is nonsense. Your (name removed by moderator)ut is unnecessary and unwelcome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

When someone extrapolates motives on a person for simply telling the truth, THAT is nonsense. Your (name removed by moderator)ut is unnecessary and unwelcome.

Your comments, ( and your reaction to the reaction to those comments), are unnecessary, unwelcome, and inflammatory.

For shame!!!

 

[mardukm]

Your comments and reactions to those comments are unnecessary, unwelcome, and inflamatory.

For shame!!!

And yours are the epitome of humility and goodness, I suppose?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

And yours are the epitome of humility and goodness, I suppose?

Another attempt at sarcasm?

 

[mardukm]

If I offer you $10 to get a bunch of friends together and beat up some person of my choosing, and you accept, who has sinned more, you, me, or your friends?

If one is truly apologetic it doesn’t matter who else is involved.

With that said I don’t think the Sack itself was a sin of the church, it was the sin of those who took part, what happened afterwards was - when the church validated what was done.

An ambitious Greek individual doesn’t matter.

It matters because someone thought it was about an ecclesiastical matter, when it wasn’t. That was the only purpose of my post - to correct that mistake. I don’t understand your reactions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

It matters because someone thought it was about an ecclesiastical matter, when it wasn’t. That was the only purpose of my post - to correct that mistake. I don’t understand your reactions.

Blessings,
Marduk

It became an ecclesiastical matter when the church in Rome validated what they did, instead of following through on its threat to excommunicate the lot of them.

 

[mardukm]

It became an ecclesiastical matter when the church in Rome validated what they did, instead of following through on its threat to excommunicate the lot of them.

The poster said that the sack was BECAUSE OF an ecclesiastical matter. Someone had to correct that factual error.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

The poster said that the sack was BECAUSE OF an ecclesiastical matter. Someone had to correct that factual error.

Blessings,
Marduk

Maybe, but it is semantics, and you made it sound like the church had no responsibility in the matter. Whether or not this was intentional, it is what drew the response from Orthodox posters.

 

[mardukm]

Maybe, but it is semantics, and you made it sound like the church had no responsibility in the matter. Whether or not this was intentional, it is what drew the response from Orthodox posters.

That was not intentional, but you are absolutely correct that I do not believe that the CHURCH had any responsibility in the matter. For you to blame the Latin Catholic CHURCH on attacking Constantinople is beyond all reason!!!


EDIT: I would be just as mad if some Latin blamed the Eastern Orthodox CHURCH for the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople that occurred only about 20 years prior to the sack of Constantinople. In that event, the exact same desecrations and murders occurred against the Latins that occurred during the sack of Constantinople.

 

[Nine_Two]

That was not intentional, but you are absolutely correct that I do not believe that the CHURCH had any responsibility in the matter. For you to blame the Latin Catholic CHURCH on attacking Constantinople is beyond all reason!!!


EDIT: I would be just as mad if some Latin blamed the Eastern Orthodox CHURCH for the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople that occurred only about 20 years prior to the sack of Constantinople. In that event, the exact same desecrations and murders occurred against the Latins that occurred during the sack of Constantinople.

If the EP had appointed the leaders of the mob which carried out the massacre of the latins, Emperor of Rome, the two events would have been quite analogous.

I’m not aware of the Orthodox Church doing anything to validate the Massacre of the Latins.

 

[mardukm]

If the EP had appointed the leaders of the mob which carried out the massacre of the latins, Emperor of Rome, the two events would have been quite analogous.

I’m not aware of the Orthodox Church doing anything to validate the Massacre of the Latins.

The animus against the Latins was religiously motivated, my friend. That has everything to do with the EP. The Latins were heretics in the eyes of the Greeks (and guess who made them think that way) and the economic rationale was just the right excuse to root out the heretics. Historians note that the Latin clergy were conspicuously subjected to atrocities, the Pope’s own envoy having been beheaded.

Oh, and let’s not forget that in 1190. Patriarch Dositheus of Constantinople proactively granted indulgences to any Greek who would murder a Crusader, such was the hatred that the Greeks had against these heretics to the highest levels of the hierarchy.

 

[Nine_Two]

The animus against the Latins was religiously motivated, my friend. That has everything to do with the EP. The Latins were heretics in the eyes of the Greeks (and guess who made them think that way) and the economic rationale was just the right excuse to root out the heretics. Historians note that the Latin clergy were conspicuously subjected to atrocities, the Pope’s own envoy having been beheaded.

Oh, and let’s not forget that in 1190. Patriarch Dositheus of Constantinople proactively granted indulgences to any Greek who would murder a Crusader, such was the hatred that the Greeks had against these heretics to the highest levels of the hierarchy.

The animus against the Latins was religiously motivated, just like the animus by the Latins of the Orthodox was religiously motivated. That doesn’t make it the fault of the church. As I said, the place where the Latin Church went wrong was when it validated the Sacking after the fact, in spite of a threat to excommunicate those who engaged in such activities (a threat that was carried out after an army sacked Zeta on the way to Constantinople).

I have no idea what bringing up Patriarch Dositheus has to do with this. You don’t have to prove there was animosity, that is a given. It seems you’re just trying to turn this into a “see, you guys have wronged us!” competition, which wasn’t the point, and again, wasn’t the reason you got the reaction you did.

 

[mardukm]

The animus against the Latins was religiously motivated, just like the animus by the Latins of the Orthodox was religiously motivated. That doesn’t make it the fault of the church. As I said, the place where the Latin Church went wrong was when it validated the Sacking after the fact, in spite of a threat to excommunicate those who engaged in such activities (a threat that was carried out after an army sacked Zeta on the way to Constantinople).

No, brother. The attack by the Latins on Constantinople was NOT religiously motivated because the Pope considered the Greeks fellow Christians, and asserted this very strongly to the Crusaders. In fact, there were many Crusaders who, when they learned of the plans to attack Constantinople, left the force and returned home instead. That is different from the Greeks attacking the Latins because the clergy of the Greeks were consistently calling the Latins heretics. In fact, just a few years after this, when the Patriarch of Jerusalem asked the Patriarch of Antioch of he should give the Eucharist to Latin prisoners of war, the Patriarch of Antioch said NO. That was the general impression the highest levels of the Orthodox heirarchy were giving to their flock concerning the Latins - they were heretics deserving no respect.

I have no idea what bringing up Patriarch Dositheus has to do with this. You don’t have to prove there was animosity, that is a given. It seems you’re just trying to turn this into a “see, you guys have wronged us!” competition, which wasn’t the point, and again, wasn’t the reason you got the reaction you did.

The reason I brought it up is because you claimed that no action of the Orthodox after the fact validated the massacre. But the action of Patriarch Dositheus did (not to mention the matter mentioned above between the Jerusalem and Antioch Patriarchs).

 

[Filii_Dei]

Cool it, friends. As far as I’m aware, this was all a misunderstanding. Next time, let’s tone down the rhetoric and turn up the clarity.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Please can we go back to the topic, i dont know much history (except those on the net by atheist) but i know that recalling past wrong wont help us. Maybe the latins did offend the othodox and vise versa, can we forgive past wrongs? Can we demostrate forgiveness? Maybe the crusader were religiously mortivated, maybe the othodox didnt like the romans but can we seek a path of unity?
Maybe we should talk about the use of the phase ‘papal supremacy’ i guess this may be the problem.

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, brother. The attack by the Latins on Constantinople was NOT religiously motivated because the Pope considered the Greeks fellow Christians, and asserted this very strongly to the Crusaders. In fact, there were many Crusaders who, when they learned of the plans to attack Constantinople, left the force and returned home instead. That is different from the Greeks attacking the Latins because the clergy of the Greeks were consistently calling the Latins heretics. In fact, just a few years after this, when the Patriarch of Jerusalem asked the Patriarch of Antioch of he should give the Eucharist to Latin prisoners of war, the Patriarch of Antioch said NO. That was the general impression the highest levels of the Orthodox heirarchy were giving to their flock concerning the Latins - they were heretics deserving no respect.

The reason I brought it up is because you claimed that no action of the Orthodox after the fact validated the massacre. But the action of Patriarch Dositheus did (not to mention the matter mentioned above between the Jerusalem and Antioch Patriarchs).

I suppose that you must feel that the crusaders establishing Latin Patriarchs wasn’t religiously motivated either.

 

[Hesychios]

That was not intentional, but you are absolutely correct that I do not believe that the CHURCH had any responsibility in the matter. For you to blame the Latin Catholic CHURCH on attacking Constantinople is beyond all reason!!!

There were Latin bishops present, and they blessed the enterprise and held the crusade together even when the so-called excommunications were in effect.

Then the sack began, it lasted almost sixty years. These so-called excommunicated bishops and priests and nobles of the crusade went on to elect a Latin rite Catholic man of their own to be the next patriarch!

The Pope, disappointed as he may have been at first, accepted the new patriarch and the new church and the new Roman Catholic kingdom, lifting the excommunications (and blessing the coronations). The crusaders always had Mass and the sacraments, they buried their guilty dead with the rites of the church and ultimately the Pope accepted the situation crying crocodile tears. The churches of the west were then blessed with many fine donations of Greek eastern origin, like the Holy Shroud of Turin.

I would be just as mad if some Latin blamed the Eastern Orthodox CHURCH for the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople that occurred only about 20 years prior to the sack of Constantinople. In that event, the exact same desecrations and murders occurred against the Latins that occurred during the sack of Constantinople.

‘Exact same’ is not accurate, your attempts to justify an act of naked military aggression and subjugation by pointing to a single riot in the city are deplorable. What happened 20 years before was an urban race riot, like many similar events that happened in Europe against Jews. It was wrong but it wasn’t an act of war on a foreign government instigated by a church, it was an undisciplined mob of angry people in the street.

Interestingly, the Italian merchants were still in Constantinople at the time of the 4th crusade, and doing a thriving business as usual.

What you seem to be saying is that the attack on Constantinople and the subjugation of an entire nation with it’s acompanying killing and stealing by Frankish and Burgundian landed nobles was designed in revenge for what happened to Italian merchants at the hands of a mob two decades earlier, The equation is ludicrous. Besides, the only similarity between the two entirely different groups was in fact their religion and so you seem to be making the sack and subjugation religiously motivated although you deny it.

 

[Mickey]

There were Latin bishops present, and they blessed the enterprise and held the crusade together even when the so-called excommunications were in effect.

Then the sack began, it lasted almost sixty years. These so-called excommunicated bishops and priests and nobles of the crusade went on to elect a Latin rite Catholic man of their own to be the next patriarch!

The Pope, disappointed as he may have been at first, accepted the new patriarch and the new church and the new Roman Catholic kingdom, lifting the excommunications (and blessing the coronations). The crusaders always had Mass and the sacraments, they buried their guilty dead with the rites of the church and ultimately the Pope accepted the situation crying crocodile tears. The churches of the west were then blessed with many fine donations of Greek eastern origin, like the Holy Shroud of Turin.

‘Exact same’ is not accurate, your attempts to justify an act of naked military aggression and subjugation by pointing to a single riot in the city are deplorable. What happened 20 years before was an urban race riot, like many similar events that happened in Europe against Jews. It was wrong but it wasn’t an act of war on a foreign government instigated by a church, it was an undisciplined mob of angry people in the street.

Interestingly, the Italian merchants were still in Constantinople at the time of the 4th crusade, and doing a thriving business as usual.

What you seem to be saying is that the attack on Constantinople and the subjugation of an entire nation with it’s acompanying killing and stealing by Frankish and Burgundian landed nobles was designed in revenge for what happened to Italian merchants at the hands of a mob two decades earlier, The equation is ludicrous. Besides, the only similarity between the two entirely different groups was in fact their religion and so you seem to be making the sack and subjugation religiously motivated although you deny it.

Great post. :yup: