How Do Orthodox Christians View the Pope?

[GaryTaylor]

Sadly that review misses all the points that I highlighted in my copy.

Is there a link I missed where this can viewed?

 

[Nicea325]

Sorry…but as a Catholic I disagree. What has happened in Catholicism are changes that make it less recognizable as the original Church. I do believe the Pope speaks universally on matters of morals and faith…but there is too much power that has been “inherited” through self pronouncements. While the Church is not democratic…I believe the Orthodox are more in line with the historical position of the Pope as first among equals. Sorry but that is very much in line with history.

Here is where I have the issue: first among equals. When and where do the ECF call or refer to Peter as “first” amnong equals? How can one be first and yet be an equal?

 

[Wisely]

Here is where I have the issue: first among equals. When and where do the ECF call or refer to Peter as “first” amnong equals? How can one be first and yet be an equal?

Idk, ask the Dean of the College of Cardinals

 

[Ubenedictus]

Wow! Im back, hope you are not delibrately twisting my words

Well, then you are reading it wrong. Did not Jerome also stress the equality of the apostles in that very quote? Surely then, Peter’s headship is not how you understand it to be.

Now what do yo think is my understanding? What type of equality do you think existed in the apostolic times?

Homoousios was not some new word. It had a meaning in Greek of either being of the same existence or of the same type of being. The Church, in her wisdom, used the word with the second understanding to describe the sameness of the Son to the Father. They did not invent a new doctrine but merely put into precise words what they had already known from the very beginning: that the Son is divine. My problem with the Thomist view is that it undermines the person of the Father by ascribing what is rightly His to the divine essence.

I didnt say it was a new word, i said that was the first time it was used to describe a doctrine, in this case it is said that the doctrine developed. I see you didnt talk about the word trinity. For now i just dont get the thomist thing, ill check it up.

The office of overseer (episcopos or bishop) is not some sort of development. To believe so is literally heresy because it denies that the Church is Apostolic as understood in the Nicene Creed. We believe that the order of Episcopacy was passed down from the Apostles to this present day.

I ask again hope you are not misrepresenting me on purpose i didnt say the office developed i said the words patriarch and arch bishops developed from a system in the new testament where we have many bishops and yet some had a kind of authority over other, i can still remember my post talking about the twelve, others called apostles, etc. Ill check my post again but im positive i didnt talk about office but names. I think you should read about development of doctrine because you are talking about a different thing. ‘sort of development’, ‘heresy’ a big misunderstanding, please reseach on the subject.
Ubenedictus

 

[GaryTaylor]

Idk, ask the Dean of the College of Cardinals

In other words you have no answer?

 

[Wisely]

In other words you have no answer?

Nicea asked how can someone be first and be equal.
I told him to ask the Dean of the Cardinals because he is the first among equals of the Cardinals.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea asked how can someone be first and be equal.
I told him to ask the Dean of the Cardinals because he is the first among equals of the Cardinals.

Sorry, still did not answer the question. How can one be “first” (first means exactly what it means…first) and yet still be an equal? Unless Orthodox have a different definition for the term first?

The Dean of Caardinals is first among equals? The Dean is the senior member above others, therefore, why call him Dean at all? His duties and responsibilities are above the others. Care to show us were such a title of honor is used among the Dean of Cardinals, since Orthodox teach that it is based on mere honor?

 

[Wisely]

Sorry, still did not answer the question. How can one be “first” (first means exactly what it means…first) and yet still be an equal? Unless Orthodox have a different definition for the term first?

The Dean of Caardinals is first among equals? Care to show us were such a title of honor is used among the Dean of Cardinals, since Orthodox teach that it is based on mere honor?

“While the Dean (or in his absence or inability, the Subdean) presides over the College of Cardinals, he has no power of governance over the other cardinals. Instead he functions as primus inter pares in the college.” Wikipedia

He doesn’t have power over the other Cardinals, but more responsabilities.

And most obvious examples of “First among Equals” are found in the Trinity and the Family:

In the Trinity all Persons are equal but the Father is always first.
In the Family both Man and Woman are equal, but the Man is always first. (Because Adam was first, then Eve yadda yadda)

 

[Nicea325]

“While the Dean (or in his absence or inability, the Subdean) presides over the College of Cardinals, he has no power of governance over the other cardinals. Instead he functions as primus inter pares in the college.” Wikipedia

He doesn’t have power over the other Cardinals, but more responsabilities.

And most obvious examples of “First among Equals” are found in the Trinity and the Family:

In the Trinity all Persons are equal but the Father is always first.
In the Family both Man and Woman are equal, but the Man is always first. (Because Adam was first, then Eve yadda yadda)

Okay, but were is such a title used? You keep insisting he is first among equals? Where and when is he referred to first among equals? Now you are comparing the Trinity to human offices? The Trinity is not an office.

 

[Wisely]

Okay, but were is such a title used? You keep insisting he is first among equals? Where and when is he referred to first among equals? Now you are comparing the Trinity to human offices? The Trinity is not an office.

Why do you keep insisting it is a title? It’s not. It is used to describe an office or order.
If you do not belive the Father is first among equals, do you belive its ok to pray “In the name of the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Father?”

 

[rinnie]

We need not discuss the ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian here (and I would prefer not to go into it again) but if you insist on it we will go over the subject, and everyone will see that the saint did not support anything like a modern Papacy and you are misquoting him by saying he believed this about the Pope.

He was referring to his own See (and all orthodox Sees) in that quote. In other words, for saint Cyprian all bishops are Peter, but for Roman Catholics as soon as the read ‘Peter’ they think ‘Pope’ and thereby quite often misread the man.

We do feel Peter is the Pope the leader of the Sheep, Why? Because Jesus said so, We do believe that it would be through the mouth of Peter we would be taught, Why, The word of God says so.

We do believe Peter and PETER ONLY has the keys to the kingdom. Why? Because Christ said so.

I have asked this numerous times, and have never had an answer. If Peter was not the ONLY one given the keys to the kingdom, could you show me scripture when it states otherwise. Thanks.

 

[Wisely]

We do feel Peter is the Pope the leader of the Sheep, Why? Because Jesus said so, We do believe that it would be through the mouth of Peter we would be taught, Why, The word of God says so.

We do believe Peter and PETER ONLY has the keys to the kingdom. Why? Because Christ said so.

I have asked this numerous times, and have never had an answer. If Peter was not the ONLY one given the keys to the kingdom, could you show me scripture when it states otherwise. Thanks.

Sola Scriptura? No thanks.

Tradition and the Church Fathers tell us that all the Apostles recieved the keys through Peter, yes, but ALL the Apostles have them.

And yes, Peter was told to feed the sheep, he recieved the keys, etc.
That was told to PETER ONLY, not the Bishop of Rome nor the Bishop of Antioch.
Could you show me scripture when it states that the Bishop of Rome is the only successor of Peter? (I’m kidding, but it is still an argument)

All the Bishops are successors to St.Peter, that’s why all of them have the keys and all of them feed their sheep.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well listen I’m sticking up for my Orthodox brothers.

Fact is the Apostle Andrew was FIRST chosen by Christ.

 

[rinnie]

Sola Scriptura? No thanks.

Tradition and the Church Fathers tell us that all the Apostles recieved the keys through Peter, yes, but ALL the Apostles have them.

And yes, Peter was told to feed the sheep, he recieved the keys, etc.
That was told to PETER ONLY, not the Bishop of Rome nor the Bishop of Antioch.
Could you show me scripture when it states that the Bishop of Rome is the only successor of Peter? (I’m kidding, but it is still an argument)

All the Bishops are successors to St.Peter, that’s why all of them have the keys and all of them feed their sheep.

SS how do you figure? It is the teaching of the RCC.

Tradition shows that the keys were passed down from the time of Peter to our time.

You claim all of the Bishops are successors of Peter. I agree. But where do ALL the Bishops hold the title of Pope?

 

[Wisely]

SS how do you figure? It is the teaching of the RCC.

Tradition shows that the keys were passed down from the time of Peter to our time.

You claim all of the Bishops are successors of Peter. I agree. But where do ALL the Bishops hold the title of Pope?

Yes, the keys were passed down to our time, and all the Bishops have them. If they do not have them, then they have no real authority.

In North Africa, in ancient times, Bishops of important cities had the title of Pope. (i.e. Alexandria, Carthage etc)

 

[rinnie]

Yes, the keys were passed down to our time, and all the Bishops have them. If they do not have them, then they have no real authority.

In North Africa, in ancient times, Bishops of important cities had the title of Pope. (i.e. Alexandria, Carthage etc)

If all of the Bishops claim to hold the keys to the kingdom that were given to St Peter, then can you explain to me why we only have one who claims the title of Pope?

And what does the Pope being the leader of the RCC have to do with the other Biships having no authority? Who says they have no authority?

They have much authority. They have the power to bind and loose sin, they can do the Sacraments. You don’t think teaching in the name of Christ and the Eucharist is not Authority given to them by Christ?

 

[Wisely]

If all of the Bishops claim to hold the keys to the kingdom that were given to St Peter, then can you explain to me why we only have one who claims the title of Pope?

And what does the Pope being the leader of the RCC have to do with the other Biships having no authority? Who says they have no authority?

They have much authority. They have the power to bind and loose sin, they can do the Sacraments. You don’t think teaching in the name of Christ and the Eucharist is not Authority given to them by Christ?

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

The 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.

 

[Wisely]

The authority of the Bishops is derived from the keys.
All the Apostles had keys and if a succession exists, then their successors also have the keys.
If the Pope of Rome is the ONLY owner of the keys, then the RCC Bishops are just the Pope’s puppets lacking real effective power. “An extention of his power” in proper words.

Imagine if a Bishop today would confront the Pope as St. Cyprian did with St. Stephen. Just imagine that. RC Bishops today can’t do nothing by themselves, they have to have a Papal Approval for everthing!

 

[Nicea325]

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

The 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.

The West developed distorted ecclesiology? This sounds like a mere opinion, pleae back it up with sound documents. And where is the notion of “first among of equals” in the early church? Rome stole the title from Alexandria? Documents please…

 

[JPeter]

The Church has received no certain fixed tradition as to what our Lord meant by “the Rock” in Matthew 16: 17-20. Some of the Fathers taught that Christ himself is the rock, others that the faith in his Godhead and Messiahship which St. Peter confessed is meant, others again that St. Peter is the rock. Several of the Fathers held two of these opinions together, and some held all three. St Augustine in his earlier writings taught that St. Peter is the rock, but afterwords he gave up that view, and held that Christ is the rock. His words are–“I said in a certain place of the apostle st. Peter, that upon him, as upon the rock the Church was founded…But I know that afterwords I most often expounded that saying of our Lord–Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build my Church” as meaning upon Him whom Peter confessed saying–“Thou art the Christ, the Son fo the living God.” Let the reader choose which one of these two interpretations is more probable’. The fact that this great teacher changed his mind as to the meaning of the passage, and left it an open question to his readers’ shows that he had no idea that any important doctrine depends on its interpretation.
It is very noticeable that, if we accept the popes and the persons closely associated with the Roman see, the fathers, who understand the rock to be st. Peter, in no way connect our lords promise with the institution of the Papacy.
St. Peter may be regarded as the rock, because he first confessed belief in the person and office of Christ, and first was nominated to be an apostle. He was first in order amongst the twelve, but had no jurisdiction over the rest of the apostles. He was not their Lord, but their leader: he was “primus inter pares,” i.e., first among equals. The fathers lay great stress on the equality of the apostles.
If St. Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built, we must remember that the other apostles are also spoken of as foundations of the Church (see Eph.2:20; Rev. 21:14). The power of the keys promised first to St. Peter, was afterwards promised by our lord to all the apostles in similar words (compare St. Matthew 16:19 with18:18); and it was simultaneously communicated to all(St. Thomas excepted) by our Lords mysterious breathing, and by His words of power, on the evening of the day of His resurrection (see St. John 20:21-24).–Anglican perspective