How Do Orthodox Christians View the Pope?

[Mickey]

I think that the Roman Church’s rejection of ‘Uniatism’ as a model of union was a step in the right direction. I think it’s now more of a matter of waiting to make sure that they won’t change their minds. Seeing the Eastern Catholic Churches become something like autocephalous churches would probably be another reassuring step. I think some are probably watching to see if this will happen.

 

[Nine_Two]

please give me a document that say the atrocities are validated. What i can find are documents against the atrocities, accepting the results and lifting the excommunication. Till u can provide proof that the pope agreed with all the deeds of the crusade i can only say the opinion is not correct.
Ubenedictus

I didn’t say he directly validated the atrocities. I said he validated them by his confirmation of the new Latin Emperor and the Latin Patriarch in Constantinople.

If you want the actual historical document by which he did this, I have no idea where it is, and since it won’t be in English I’m not going to go looking.

If you’d be happy with a secondary source, let me know. Those are a dime a dozen.

 

[Ubenedictus]

The union isn’t what he’s talking about, it’s what happened in the hundreds of years afterward.

here we go, what happen years after and what role did the pope play? Please be specific.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

I didn’t say he directly validated the atrocities. I said he validated them by his confirmation of the new Latin Emperor and the Latin Patriarch in Constantinople.

so accepting the emperor and patriarch meant he validated the atrocities? How is that?
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Then it should be easy for the RC to agree to repudiate the dogma of universal jurisdiction.

hahaha i just dont get it how does the pope’s universal jurisdiction imply a take over of the orthodox church.
Sory it is already a dogma so u cant repudiate it. Beside this is not a clear point, the pope universal jurisdiction implies a takeover of the oc, it doesnt work, it not a point the pope has alway excercised universal jurisdiction and the oc have not been taken over.
Ubenedictus.

 

[Ubenedictus]

The union isn’t what he’s talking about, it’s what happened in the hundreds of years afterward.

WHAT HAPPENED AFTERwards? And what was the popes role in it?

I think it is a cause of much suspicion. Seeing what happened with several Eastern Catholic Churches gives the Orthodox much pause. This talk of rites of equal dignity basically did not exist before the mid 20th century, so you will have to forgive the Orthodox if they have not yet decided that the Roman Catholic Church has done an about-face in the past fifty years and that this change in mentality is not something temporary.

SORry but the union of brest wasnt in the 20th century and there is a dignity of rites in that document which the pope signed so i dont agree with you.
And again where did you get this information that says ‘the roman church has a taking over mentality’? It sounds like an insult. Beside maybe if i check history maybe i wil see leaders of the oc who consider the latins to be heretics, does that mean the oc has a mentality of insulting the catholic church and considering the romans as non catholic(non orthodox)?
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Actually it is constitutional with the RC, I think you know that .

For example, the movement of Mar Bawai Soro into the the Catholic church was considered ‘unity’, but the fact that the Church of the East already had a Eucharistic agreement with the RC was not. Why is that?

I had to look at that bishops case again and i cant find anything wrong with accepting his group. I dont know anything about the eucharistic agreement so u may fill me in.

The dogma of universal jurisdiction is the reason. RC tend to have a very concise idea of what Christian unity is. The only concept RC understand is where there is one corporate body, and a merger of sorts. Anything else is ‘not unity’ in a Roman Catholic sense.

‘One corporate body’ sounds like ’ there will be one shepherd, one fold’. What wrong with a corporate body with differet rites and practices?

It is not so in Holy Orthodoxy. If the Papacy taught Orthodox theology we could be in communion right away, but our church structures would be no different whatever from what they are right now.

It isn’t just the Orthodox who are organized in this way, the non-Chalcedonians are too. It wasn’t a choice or decision to organize their communion thus, they inherited it.

They inherited it? Will u agree that d pope of rome inherited a model where he is a sign and source of unity for the churh universal? And has a say in matter outside rome?

The Pope of Alexandria has no say whatever in how the Jacobite church in Syria conducts it’s business, neither does the patriarch for the Armenians. They don’t control one another because they are in free association with one another because they agree in theology and respect each other. If one church should diverge in a basic theological way the others are quite capable of voicing their concerns, and they could cut off communion if necessary.

BEAUTIFUL, so we can add papal primacy to the list. Is there a problem with that?

But they have not, because they want to agree, they want to be in communion with each other. The relationship is entirely mutual. The goal is to be as conservative in doctrinal matters as possible, always looking to the received faith as the standard. The ecclesiological model of the non-Chalcedonians and the Orthodox is basically the same, because they both reflect the organization of the early church.

The RC has definitely evolved it’s ecclesiology. The RC could be part of the Orthodox network of churches. It’s an easy fix.

it’s an easy fix? The rc evolved it’s ecclesiology, does that include papal primacy? So there was no primacy? Just churches who recieved the faith and exclude the other if she is not faithful, i think cyprian didnt agree with this model.
Ubenedictus

 

[Hesychios]

I had to look at that bishops case again and i cant find anything wrong with accepting his group. I dont know anything about the eucharistic agreement so u may fill me in.

The Church of the East and the Roman Catholic church already had an agreement to offer and serve the Holy Eucharist to each others members.

From and Orthodox perspective that is unity. There was no reason for Mar Bawai to move, he was already in communion and that is unity.

‘One corporate body’ sounds like ’ there will be one shepherd, one fold’. What wrong with a corporate body with differet rites and practices?

This is exactly what I am talking about.

If we all believe the same things under our bishops we are already one fold under the one shepherd, Jesus Christ.

The Papacy derived from one local Metropolitan, his area is central Italy. In fact the region was known to the ancient imperial Romans as suburbicarian Italy. It did not include Gaul, it did not include Spain, it did not even include Milan and the region around it (generally cisalpine Gaul).

His proper place is as a Metropolitan. That’s it.

According to the canons of the church the ‘other provinces’ are supposed to be likewise in their own synods chaired by their own Metropolitans.

They inherited it? Will u agree that d pope of rome inherited a model where he is a sign and source of unity for the churh universal?

Of course not. Jesus Christ is the sign and source of unity. Together receiving Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist is a sign and source of unity, and that happens only with common faith.

And has a say in matter outside rome?

Absolutely not. His concerns are properly within the province of Rome.

BEAUTIFUL, so we can add papal primacy to the list. Is there a problem with that?

Primacy is not a problem, it is a process and there is nothing wrong with the process - in fact it functions throughout the church at many levels. Historically the church at Rome does not control other particular churches. A Metropolitan See cannot regulate another synod’s liturgies or the calendar of saints and canonizations for any other synod, nor name their bishops. It cannot transfer bishops from one See to another on it’s own authority, that is the prerogative of the synod.

A Metropolitan See cannot intervene in the local operations of any church on it’s own. It would have to be invited if it was involved at all, and only as a neighbor, not by any intrinsic authority it might claim to possess.

it’s an easy fix? The rc evolved it’s ecclesiology, does that include papal primacy?

Primacy doth not supremacy make. Two different things.

Just churches who recieved the faith and exclude the other if she is not faithful, i think cyprian didnt agree with this model.
Ubenedictus

I think Saint Cyprian very much did not agree with the model you would propose.

 

[Ubenedictus]

You’re not going to get much of an argument from me, a Ruthenian, in that regard, but I think its a bit of an over-extension to claim that the RCC actively seeks to take over Orthodox churches today.

Haven’t we gotten to the point officially where the wounds of Uniatism were mutually acknowledged, with a vow to discontinue the practice? I’m referring most specifically to the Balamand Statement of 1993 and subsequent work of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

please can someone explain the term uniatism wikipedia thinks it is about accepting the authority of the pope while maintaining the different rites and the methods employed in the past gives the term a negative conotation, another site ‘the voice of russia’ thinks it is the mechanisation of the latin (who have no sacrament, grace, church or 'spiritual apostolic succesion) to break down the church (orthodox). So many views, what really is ‘uniatism’?
Ubenedictus

 

[ByzCathCantor]

please can someone explain the term uniatism wikipedia thinks it is about accepting the authority of the pope while maintaining the different rites and the methods employed in the past gives the term a negative conotation, another site ‘the voice of russia’ thinks it is the mechanisation of the latin (who have no sacrament, grace, church or 'spiritual apostolic succesion) to break down the church (orthodox). So many views, what really is ‘uniatism’?
Ubenedictus

common (simplified) definition

the union of an Eastern Rite church with the Roman Church in which the authority of the papacy is accepted without loss of separate liturgies or government by local patriarchs

Most of the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches reunited with Rome via union agreements (e.g. Union of Brest; Union of Uzhgorod; etc.), hence the derivative term “uniate” to refer to a Church that rejoined the communion with Rome via these agreements.

The term is no longer widely used, and did (as you sensed) develop a rather negative connotation. The process of uniatism was disavowed in the interest of continuing ecumenical dialogue focused on the reunification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, as mentioned in my related post.

Bear in mind that these unions took place after the Great Schism, so the Churches (or portions of Churches) that reunited with Rome were Orthodox at the time. There were understandable hard feelings on the Orthodox side associated with the return of these Churches to the Catholic Communion.

Some of these wounds are only beginning to heal fairly recently, largely through the brotherly efforts of the hierarchs of the related yet separated Catholic and Orthodox Churches. In the case of my Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic church, there was actually a subsequent return to Orthodoxy in this country by a significant number of faithful (immigrants of first and second generation), starting in the early 20th century, after some of our traditions and disciplines were suppresed in the U.S. under pressure from Latin hierarchs and Rome directly. This lead to the formation of the Orthodox Church of America (OCA) and the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese of the U.S.A. Especially in the case of the latter Church, you would be hard pressed as a guest to distinguish between the Divine Liturgy of the these Orthodox traditions versus that of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church here in America.

While some who hold on to the pain of the wounds of uniatism may claim other consequences (loss of Apostolic succession and the like), it is unlikely that those most familiar with the circumstances would make such claims, as they are illogical in the broader context of Orthodox-Catholic relations and mutual recognitions.

I will note, as alluded above, these reunified Churches often suffered interesting consequences of allegiance to Rome, including separation from their Orthodox counterparts, voluntary and involuntary “latinization” (or loss of tradition) and loss of traditional disciplines like the married priesthood. The degree to which these “uniate” Churches became truly sui juris depended (and still somewhat depends) on the size of these churches and whether or not they are Partriachial in structure, or simply Metropolitan Churches directly accountable to the Roman Pontiff. For example, the former can and do elect their own bishops and Patriarchs. The latter submit episcopal candidates to Rome for consideration.

There are other distinctions and characteristics, but hopefully this gives you some good perspective (that of a “cradle” Eastern Catholic, at least, while I have endeavored to be honest and “balanced” in my response to your question).

 

[rinnie]

I think the title is pretty self-expanitory of my question. As a former Baptist, I was heavily convinced of the primacy of the Pope through Scriptural evidence for the primacy of St. Peter. I noticed the papacy seems to have ended for Orthodox Christians in 1045 AD, and the issue happened to be over the residency of the Pope. So my basic question is this: How do Orthodox Christians view the Pope?

From what I have learned from my Orthodox friends, many Love and respect him the same as we do. Probally most.

But from what I have learned he does not carry the authority with them, as it does with us.

 

[Nine_Two]

so accepting the emperor and patriarch meant he validated the atrocities? How is that?
Ubenedictus

We’re going in circles. You’ve asked that before, and it has been answered.

 

[rinnie]

I have shown from the Fathers…and can show more…where the keys are inextricably linked to binding and loosing. Can you show from the Fathers…where it says that **only **St Peter received the keys?

Hey buddy I can.

Matt 15:18 And so I say to YOU, You are Peter…I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.

Now does this mean he can bind and loose sins? Yep. But where does it state he can ONLY bind and loose SIN? It does not.

It says WHATEVER you bind on earth.

Now when we go to John 20:21 Jesus says as the Father has sent me, so I send you. And when he had said this he Breathed on THEN and said to THEM Receive the Holy Spirit, Whose sins YOU forgive are forgiven and whos sins you retain are retained.

Now do ALL of the Apostles have the Power of the Holy Spirit? Yep, Scritpure tells us so. Do ALL of the Apostles have the power to forgive sin in the name of God? Yep! Scripture tells us so.

But where does scripture say HE SAID TO THEM to YOU I give the keys to the kingdom? It don’t. It said to YOU PETER,

The keys to the kingdom was not mentioned when he gave them the power to forgive sin. The forgiveness of sin was not ONLY mentioned when the keys were given to Peter. It did not say whose SIN you forgive are forgiven its says WHATEVER you bind on earth. That is a big difference.

 

[Mickey]

It says WHATEVER you bind on earth.

Just like it says to all the Apostles in Matt 18:18

Amen I say to you, **whatsoever **you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

But where does scripture say HE SAID TO THEM to YOU I give the keys to the kingdom?

That is the point rinnie…the keys are linked to the authority of binding and loosing. Scripture does not tell us that the others did not receive the keys…and the Holy Fathers tell us that in fact they did.

It did not say whose SIN you forgive are forgiven its says WHATEVER you bind on earth. That is a big difference.

Re-read Matt18:18 above.

Anyway…this thread is about how the Orthodox view the Pope. If you would like to start yet another long drawn out argument about the keys, you may want to start a separate thread.

 

[rinnie]

Just like it says to all the Apostles in Matt 18:18

Amen I say to you, **whatsoever **you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
That is the point rinnie…the keys are linked to the authority of binding and loosing. Scripture does not tell us that the others did not receive the keys…and the Holy Fathers tell us that in fact they did.
Re-read Matt18:18 above.

Anyway…this thread is about how the Orthodox view the Pope. If you would like to start yet another long drawn out argument about the keys, you may want to start a separate thread.

Yes you are right, we don’t want to de-rail. We can discuss this on another thread.

By the Way Happy VD all!

 

[Mickey]

By the Way Happy VD all!

Likewise!

 

[Ubenedictus]

The Church of the East and the Roman Catholic church already had an agreement to offer and serve the Holy Eucharist to each others members.

From and Orthodox perspective that is unity. There was no reason for Mar Bawai to move, he was already in communion and that is unity.

I think the word is religious liberty. You should read about what made him come to the catholic church.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

If we all believe the same things under our bishops we are already one fold under the one shepherd, Jesus Christ.

i love this. Cyprain express what i mean when he says ‘there is one church and one chair’

The Papacy derived from one local Metropolitan, his area is central Italy. In fact the region was known to the ancient imperial Romans as suburbicarian Italy. It did not include Gaul, it did not include Spain, it did not even include Milan and the region around it (generally cisalpine Gaul).

His proper place is as a Metropolitan. That’s it

.this is your opinion and it is not shared by the church father, i daresay i wrong opinion

According to the canons of the church the ‘other provinces’ are supposed to be likewise in their own synods chaired by their own Metropolitans.

And im sure you will show me the nicean council, right?

Of course not. Jesus Christ is the sign and source of unity. Together receiving Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist is a sign and source of unity, and that happens only with common faith.

Maybe cyprain explains it best, he say:‘he (Jesus) founded a single chair and established by his own authority a source and intrinsic reason for that unity’ and again ‘he established by his own authority a source for that unity which takes its begining for one man alone’

Absolutely not. His concerns are properly within the province of Rome.

Why do the father believe that peters jurisdiction is the whole church? And why does cyprian talk about one church and chair? You are on your own

Primacy is not a problem, it is a process and there is nothing wrong with the process - in fact it functions throughout the church at many levels. Historically the church at Rome does not control other particular churches. A Metropolitan See cannot regulate another synod’s liturgies or the calendar of saints and canonizations for any other synod, nor name their bishops. It cannot transfer bishops from one See to another on it’s own authority, that is the prerogative of the synod.

A metropolitan cannot unless he sit on peters chair.

A Metropolitan See cannot intervene in the local operations of any church on it’s own. It would have to be invited if it was involved at all, and only as a neighbor, not by any intrinsic authority it might claim to possess.
Primacy doth not supremacy make. Two different things.
I think Saint Cyprian very much did not agree with the model you would propose.

what i can find is a pope of rome as early as 95AD giving decisions about a situation in corith, i can also find st victor asking for conformity in a matter of custom under excommunication his authority was not denial though opinion was, i can also find a synod asking the pope to excommunicate a bishop (cyprain wrote on behalf of the synod,etc in these cases the bishop of rome was not acting as a neighbour but as an authority. So explain with proof.
Lastly im not proposing a new model im supporting that which is there and has developed to what it is today, im talking about that which the fathers agree.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Just like it says to all the Apostles in Matt 18:18

Amen I say to you, **whatsoever **you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
That is the point rinnie…the keys are linked to the authority of binding and loosing. Scripture does not tell us that the others did not receive the keys…and the Holy Fathers tell us that in fact they did.
Re-read Matt18:18 above.

Anyway…this thread is about how the Orthodox view the Pope. If you would like to start yet another long drawn out argument about the keys, you may want to start a separate thread.

i think this has been answered peter recieved the keys and shared it to others (i think)

 

[Ubenedictus]

We’re going in circles. You’ve asked that before, and it has been answered.

yeah that is bcos u arent giving straight answers, the result was accepted and excommunication lifted how does that validate all the crimes? pls be straight.
Ubenedictus

 

[Mickey]

yeah that is bcos u arent giving straight answers,

All the answers have been straight. Let he who as ears… hear.