I was open to Orthodoxy but...

[Cavaradossi]

The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is “first” in honour among all the Eastern Orthodox bishops, presides in person - or through a delegate - “over any council of Orthodox primates and/or bishops” in which he takes part and serves as “primary spokesman for the Orthodox communion”, especially in ecumenical contacts with other Christian denominations. He has no direct jurisdiction over the other patriarchs or the other autocephalous Orthodox churches, but he, alone among his fellow-primates, enjoys the right of convening extraordinary synods consisting of them and/or their delegates to deal with ad hoc situations and has also convened well-attended Pan-Orthodox Synods in the last forty years.

In addition to being the “spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide”, he is the direct administrative superior of dioceses and archdioceses serving millions of Greek, Ukrainian, Rusyn and Albanian believers in North and South America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, Hong Kong, Korea, Southeast Asia and parts of modern Greece which, for historical reasons, do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Church of Greece.

God Bless, Gary

The Ecumenical Patriarch doesn’t have direct authority over you unless you happen to be in his tiny little diocese in Turkey. He may watch over and provide guidance for other autocephalous churches (and indeed, the whole Orthodox world), but his actual authority is much like the chairman of a board. He calls meetings, helps with administrative duties and serves as a spokesman for the entire Church, but his vote still only counts for one, and outside of synods and ecumenical councils, he cannot simply exert his authority over all of Orthodoxy and tell them what to do.

Outside of presiding over synods and ecumenical councils (in which he still only has one vote, and only in ecumenical councils and synods of his own patriarchate. I don’t think he can vote in the synods of other patriarchs) he has just the powers of an ordinary bishop who happens to have the rather extraordinary responsibility of shepherding the faithful and keeping cohesion and unity within the Eastern Orthodox Church. What we’re talking about is jurisdiction. As a Serbian Orthodox Christian, the Ecumenical Patriarch has no real jurisdiction over Rawb, and would have little effect on his day-to-day life (or really his year-to-year life either) as an Orthodox Christian. In that way, Rawb is correct in saying:

No Orthodox answers to any Patriarch unless that Patriarch happens to be their bishop. The Patriarchs have no authority over other bishops - only the Local Synod has authority over bishops.

Even as a Greek Orthodox Christian in America (the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America falls under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople) the Ecumenical Patriarch has very little effect on my day-to-day worship; the same goes for the Archbishop. Our Metropolitan, by contrast has immediate power over how our services are structured, how our priests run their parishes, and which priests are assigned to which parishes. Only a synod or ecumenical council may tell our Metropolitan what to do (which would be the case, for example, if he fell into error and could not be corrected by means of persuasion. I of course hope that this should never happen). I hope that maybe clears up the question of the authority which the bishops hold versus the authority of the Hierarchs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Ecumenical Patriarch doesn’t have direct authority over you unless you happen to be in his tiny little diocese in Turkey. He may watch over and provide guidance for other autocephalous churches (and indeed, the whole Orthodox world), but his actual authority is much like the chairman of a board. He calls meetings, helps with administrative duties and serves as a spokesman for the entire Church, but his vote still only counts for one, and outside of synods and ecumenical councils, he cannot simply exert his authority over all of Orthodoxy and tell them what to do.

Outside of presiding over synods and ecumenical councils (in which he still only has one vote, and only in ecumenical councils and synods of his own patriarchate. I don’t think he can vote in the synods of other patriarchs) he has just the powers of an ordinary bishop who happens to have the rather extraordinary responsibility of shepherding the faithful and keeping cohesion and unity within the Eastern Orthodox Church. What we’re talking about is jurisdiction. As a Serbian Orthodox Christian, the Ecumenical Patriarch has no real jurisdiction over Rawb, and would have little effect on his day-to-day life (or really his year-to-year life either) as an Orthodox Christian. In that way, Rawb is correct in saying:

Even as a Greek Orthodox Christian in America (the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America falls under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople) the Ecumenical Patriarch has very little effect on my day-to-day worship; the same goes for the Archbishop. Our Metropolitan, by contrast has immediate power over how our services are structured, how our priests run their parishes, and which priests are assigned to which parishes. Only a synod or ecumenical council may tell our Metropolitan what to do (which would be the case, for example, if he fell into error and could not be corrected by means of persuasion. I of course hope that this should never happen). I hope that maybe clears up the question of the authority which the bishops hold versus the authority of the Hierarchs.

Thats not what this is stating… “He is the direct administrative “superior” of dioceses and archdioceses serving millions of Greek, Ukrainian, Rusyn and Albanian believers in North and South America.”

Though I do understand what you are saying. Do you believe what you are saying argee’s with the “pasted” statement?

THE DIRECT ADMINISTRATIVE …SUPERIOR!

Sounds kind of “Popeish” to me??? How do you see that dichotomy?

Peace, Gary

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thats not what this is stating… “He is the direct administrative “superior” of dioceses and archdioceses serving millions of Greek, Ukrainian, Rusyn and Albanian believers in North and South America.”

Though I do understand what you are saying. Do you believe what you are saying argee’s with the “pasted” statement?

THE DIRECT ADMINISTRATIVE …SUPERIOR!

Sounds kind of “Popeish” to me??? How do you see that dichotomy? "

See what I wrote above, his administrative “superiority” is more like the chairman of the board, not like a president, monarch, or 51% shareholder (in business talk). He can only exercise most of his administrative powers by calling synods or by enforcing rules that have been laid down in the Canons, and unlike the 51% shareholder, his vote is just one vote. For example, I don’t think he’s capable of removing a bishop at will. He needs to call a synod if he wants to depose a bishop.

So yeah, to answer your question, I can agree with that statement of him being an administrative superior, but only in the same way that a chairman of the board is an administrative superior. There’s no real dichotomy to be had.

 

[GaryTaylor]

See what I wrote above, his administrative “superiority” is more like the chairman of the board, not like a president, monarch, or 51% shareholder (in business talk). He can only exercise most of his administrative powers by calling synods or by enforcing rules that have been laid down in the Canons, and unlike the 51% shareholder, his vote is just one vote. For example, I don’t think he’s capable of removing a bishop at will. He needs to call a synod if he wants to depose a bishop.

So yeah, to answer your question, I can agree with that statement of him being an administrative superior, but only in the same way that a chairman of the board is an administrative superior. There’s no real dichotomy to be had.

In truth how much different do you see this than the authority of the Pope 2011? Forgetting about the horrific past, how do you view the Pope today at his all 5’2 height and total humility.

Gary

 

[Cavaradossi]

In truth how much different do you see this than the authority of the Pope 2011? Forgetting about the horrific past, how do you view the Pope today at his all 5’2 height and total humility.

Gary

I did not know that the Pope was 5’2! I think that’s about how tall our Archbishop here in America is (he just did a service at our church last week). I would say that the potential for making infallible statements makes me uncomfortable. Of course, I have to admit that the a majority of Popes have never made infallible statements since that doctrine was laid down (the potential for abuse of power is there, but thankfully nobody uses it). The Pope has a bit more administrative power, I think, because of his power over the Ordination of bishops. Take for example, a section from the biography of my own Metropolitan:

Metropolitan Isaiah was elected to the rank of bishop by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul (Constantinople), Turkey on April 10, 1986. He was consecrated a Bishop on May 25, 1986 at Holy Trinity Cathedral in New York City, and was given the title of Bishop of Aspendos, a former Christian city in southwestern Asia Minor. In September 1986, His Eminence Archbishop Iakovos assigned him as the Chancellor of the Archdiocese in New York. Bishop Isaiah continued to function in this capacity until June 23, 1992 when he was elected Bishop of the Diocese of Denver by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, taking the new title on June 24, 1992 at special ceremonies in the Archdiocesan Chapel. He was enthroned as Bishop of Denver on September 10, 1992, at the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in Denver, Colorado.

On November 24, 1997 the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate elevated him as Metropolitan of Proikonisos and Presiding Hierarch of the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver…

Notice that he had to be made a Bishop through a Synod (and that he was given a titular bishopric, since there was no real place for him yet). He was assigned as a chancellor by the Archbishop, but only because he was a Bishop in title without a real diocese yet (a common practice, but one that it probably not Canonical, this is something which will probably be addressed the next time we have a general council of the Church. Who knows when that might happen though?). Notice that in order to make him Bishop of Denver, they again had to elect him, he couldn’t just be appointed. And then when he was made Metropolitan it again had to be a decision of the Synod. As I understand it, the Pope has a much more power over the Ordinations and the appointment of bishops than our own Ecumenical Patriarch does, and his power is universal over the whole Church, which the Ecumenical Patriarch’s is not. If we were reading, for example, the biography of a Russian Orthodox Bishop, we probably wouldn’t even see the Ecumenical Patriarchate mentioned since it would be the “Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church” electing him as a bishop, not the “Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“I would say that the potential for making infallible statements makes me uncomfortable.”

Really, they don’t bother me one bit. A man with the world on his shoulders is liable to do that, especially when he has the (name removed by moderator)ut of his staff who confirm his thinking.

I tend to wonder what motivated the statement more than what was actually said. Other than that I agree with you.

God Bless Gary

 

[jmcrae]

This is a bit ignorant of Catholic history. Italians have dominated the Papacy. Its only today because of modern technology that Bishops of other nationalities get the attention and are then elected Pope. In fact, from Clement VII in 1523 to John Paul I, all have been Italian Popes.

That’s because Rome happens to be in Italy, and because in addition to his role as Pope, the Bishop of Rome is, in fact, the Bishop of Rome - and you’re right that the ability to travel easily has made a huge difference.

But the Catholic Church was never “Italian” - it was always just Catholic - with an Italian flavor in Italy, and a Spanish flavor in Spanish-speaking countries, and an English character in English-speaking countries, etc. while retaining unity and the elements common to us all that are Catholic.

 

[Ken_Taki]

That was his experience.

Don’t undermine someones emotional experience saying its invalid or irrelevant.

No no that was more of a formed opinion after many non traumatic experiences. More of an analysis after research. Ive never been in a Catholic church where I would feel out of place not being a certain ethnicity. I mean the thought never crossed my mind. Being to Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox churches, I can say that people would start to talk to me in their native tongue and I was observed suspiciously somewhat at first.

Saying I think there is a lot of cartoony drawings in Orthodox churches as opposed to talking to a Black man right after the end of the civil war and asking him about his experience as a slave, him telling you that many of his fellow slaves were treated badly, and then you turning around and saying: ‘well one plantation is a small sample to judge from.’ is a tad different wouldnt you say?

That being said your point is well taken.

 

[Hesychios]

That’s because Rome happens to be in Italy, and because in addition to his role as Pope, the Bishop of Rome is, in fact, the Bishop of Rome - and you’re right that the ability to travel easily has made a huge difference.

But the Catholic Church was never “Italian” - it was always just Catholic - with an Italian flavor in Italy, and a Spanish flavor in Spanish-speaking countries, and an English character in English-speaking countries, etc. while retaining unity and the elements common to us all that are Catholic.

The plain fact is the early Catholic church, east and west, was organized by synods. Each synod elected it’s own bishops and it’s own Metropolitan, and regulated it’s own liturgy.

That is mostly gone now, but properly speaking the bishop of Rome is still the head of his synod (which originally did not include Milan), and should ideally (if not usually, according to the original scheme) be someone who advanced through that church and was chosen by that synod to be Metropolitan.

 

[Contarini]

Really, they don’t bother me one bit. A man with the world on his shoulders is liable to do that

Precisely what bothers the rest of us (Christians not in communion with Rome) is that we don’t see justification in Scripture or Tradition for the idea that one particular Christian bishop ought to “have the world on his shoulders.”

Rome as center of communion, sure. Even infallibility I can perhaps accept if carefully qualified. But a man with the world on his shoulders? Clearly an unorthodox innovation.

Edwin

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s because Rome happens to be in Italy, and because in addition to his role as Pope, the Bishop of Rome is, in fact, the Bishop of Rome - and you’re right that the ability to travel easily has made a huge difference.

But the Catholic Church was never “Italian” - it was always just Catholic - with an Italian flavor in Italy, and a Spanish flavor in Spanish-speaking countries, and an English character in English-speaking countries, etc. while retaining unity and the elements common to us all that are Catholic.

Eastern Churches has always been better at inculturation. The issue is they never got to spread beyond their borders for many centuries thanks to being sandwiched by the Islamic lands and the Roman Catholic lands. But today they inculturate very well in many communities. Far better than Roman Catholics who seem to have so much hangups keeping the Latin culture in the faith.

Yes, the RC Church was never Italian, it was Latin. Italians, French and Spanish culture are descendants of the Latin culture. Remember prior to them being independent kingdoms, they were part of the Roman Empire. That is why before the string of Italian Popes there were Popes born in various places not because they were foreigners, but because they were all Romans alike.

 

[KathleenGee]

Again, justification for papal infallibility grew as Christianity grew and also its complexity in face of many temporal issues, and counter faith movements.

I think today, it is more necessary than ever, that Christianity have one representative…a summation of all of us.

The pope is infallible only through the Holy Spirit, in communion with all the bishops, who represent us. We in turn infallibly through the Holy Spirit, acknowledge the Holy Spirit when the Pope speaks infallibly…it is the working of the Holy Spirit Who is always at work to make us one.

The source and life of infallibility is the Holy Spirit.

So, the understanding of infallibility cannot be answered by those who chose to remain outside of the unity of the Catholic Church. It must be answered instead by the Holy Spirit in prayer and reflection.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Precisely what bothers the rest of us (Christians not in communion with Rome) is that we don’t see justification in Scripture or Tradition for the idea that one particular Christian bishop ought to “have the world on his shoulders.”

Rome as center of communion, sure. Even infallibility I can perhaps accept if carefully qualified. But a man with the world on his shoulders? Clearly an unorthodox innovation.

Edwin

Oh I hear what you saying and am having the same converstation on the other Orthodox thread.

Catholic’s believe the Church arrives as it is today in Rome by the Divine word of Christ in Matthew.

While you may believe the Bible interpretation as you indicate. Theres over a Billion Catholics who are not only convinced of Matthew/Peter, they watched the Divine stand the test of time with it. There was never any guarentee Man would not error or would be subjected to the human period. The infinate has survived as it stated it would. The finate play their roles in their period of man. The Succession from Peter is here as Christ said it would be. And its withstood all empires and evils for 2000 years.

In the CC today with Benedict who is brilliant surrounded by a network which surrounds the world which are highly informed and educated. I’m more worried about Obama than those serving God in the CC, EO or Protestant churchs. .

God Bless, Gary

 

[jam070406]

Precisely what bothers the rest of us (Christians not in communion with Rome) is that we don’t see justification in Scripture or Tradition for the idea that one particular Christian bishop ought to “have the world on his shoulders.”

Rome as center of communion, sure. Even infallibility I can perhaps accept if carefully qualified. But a man with the world on his shoulders? Clearly an unorthodox innovation.

Edwin

I’m sure you’ve seen the justification in Scripture and Tradition that the Church presents. If not, it can be viewed here:

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%201%20On%20the%20institution%20of%20the%20apostolic%20primacy%20in%20blessed%20Peter

Saying you reject the Church’s interpretation is much different then saying you don’t see the justification.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Saying you reject the Church’s interpretation is much different then saying you don’t see the justification.

Exactly, and this happens.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Ken_Taki]

So you say that the nationality of the Pope doesn’t matter, but the Patriarch’s does? That’s quite a double standard. When one Eastern Orthodox Christian goes to another Eastern Orthodox church throughout the world, he would be able to take Communion freely no matter what Eastern Orthodox church he’s visiting because we are all united under one faith. Yes, there are slight differences in the customs of local churches, but the basic faith remains the same. We firmly believe that there is no need for one unified leader for us to answer to because our view of authority is different from the Roman Catholic view. Authority for us comes from the unity of the Church in faith.

Authority is not given only to Patriarchs; authority is given to all bishops who then hold synods when major points of disagreement come about in their patriarchate or archdiocese. If a major conflict comes across the whole church, then we hold an ecumenical council. There has not been a conflict widespread enough in Orthodoxy to warrant calling an ecumenical council for nearly 1200 years (since the iconoclasm), only synods to deal with local problems (rarely, some particularly good synods have gained unofficial Churchwide recognition even though they technically do not have the authority of an ecumenical council). There is no “Patriarch to answer to.” We are directly under the authority of our local bishop who who himself is under authority of the decisions of ecumenical councils and local synods (in other words, all bishops have authority and vote in making decisions, but they are also under the authority of the entire body of bishops). While it might seem scary not having one person of definitive authority at the head of things, I assure you that this system has worked rather well for the past 1978 years of the Church, and it is one that has preserved the deposit of the faith left to us by the Church Fathers through the generations.

The reason no council has been called thus far is because the minute someone tries to he immediately get accused of “trying to be the pope.” I can see all the older bishops saying something like that disdainfully in Russian or Arabic. Just thinking about it makes me laugh.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The reason no council has been called thus far is because the minute someone tries to he immediately get accused of “trying to be the pope.” I can see all the older bishops saying something like that disdainfully in Russian or Arabic. Just thinking about it makes me laugh.

Centuries of oppression under Muslim rule topped off with nearly a century of oppression under communist rule might also have something to do with it, along with the significant strain that calling such a council puts on the infrastructure of the Church. Let’s not forget that calling a ecumenical council effectively stops all Church administration dead in its tracks. Orthodoxy will call the next ecumenical council when the issues are pressing enough and when she is ready. Currently the issues with the Calendar and Ecumenism are probably not quite pressing enough to call one (this is of course, not a decision that I am qualified to make). Most churches have already dealt with those issues through their own Synods (even if some have come to different conclusions, which is ok in Orthodoxy. We are united in one faith, not one opinion on how to best deal with secular issues).

 

[Contarini]

I’m sure you’ve seen the justification in Scripture and Tradition that the Church presents. If not, it can be viewed here:

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%201%20On%20the%20institution%20of%20the%20apostolic%20primacy%20in%20blessed%20Peter

Saying you reject the Church’s interpretation is much different then saying you don’t see the justification.

Vatican I’s Scriptural and historical reasoning was disputed at the time, with Catholic scholars objecting to the misuse of Scripture and Tradition. However, I’m certainly open to the possibility that Vatican I can be interpreted in harmony with the Tradition. What bothers me is that many Catholics, just like many opponents of Catholicism, read it as justifying the “one man with the world on his shoulders” ecclesiology.

Our Lord’s words to Peter must be read in the context of other injunctions given to the apostles as a whole. I am not disputing that there is a special Petrine ministry. I’m saying that it is to be carried out in communion with the Church as a whole, and that describing it as “a man with the world on his shoulders” expresses precisely the disordered understanding of the Petrine ministry that has brought so much distortion and disunity to the Church.

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

Solid and fair observation, Contarini…

My grandmother told me, when abuses began happening in our parish with the beginning of Vatican II, to look at God and the sacraments, not the priest,…and then go home to live your faith. She had a great devotion to the rosary whereas for me it didn’t come until I was in my early 30’s…being brought down to my knees…by the attempted assassination of JPII…and the 15 minute rosary really cleared my head about the mishmash of liberation theology I experienced first hand overseas.

Mary helps us stay on track with the Holy Spirit…my family and I historically disconnect from disputes, go under the radar screen…my great-grandmother would roll in her grave if any of us lost our faith, she a native of Swansea, Wales, a Protestant country. I have lived in two dioceses where the pope sent a papal nuncio to investigate…No fun and alot of distress among us.

I don’t know if I would have survived the Reformation if I lived in Germany…it is like that…

You have to learn go for a ride with the Holy Spirit, bunker down, and keep living out your faith, and keep your eyes off men.

 

[jam070406]

Vatican I’s Scriptural and historical reasoning was disputed at the time, with Catholic scholars objecting to the misuse of Scripture and Tradition. However, I’m certainly open to the possibility that Vatican I can be interpreted in harmony with the Tradition. What bothers me is that many Catholics, just like many opponents of Catholicism, read it as justifying the “one man with the world on his shoulders” ecclesiology.

Our Lord’s words to Peter must be read in the context of other injunctions given to the apostles as a whole. I am not disputing that there is a special Petrine ministry. I’m saying that it is to be carried out in communion with the Church as a whole, and that describing it as “a man with the world on his shoulders” expresses precisely the disordered understanding of the Petrine ministry that has brought so much distortion and disunity to the Church.

Edwin

I didn’t pick that up at all from the previous poster’s comment. I highly doubt he believes the Pope works alone. Although, I will not speak for him.
Even Benedict asked that we pray he be spared from the wolves. It’s just a simple fact that he is the focal point. The world looks to him. Honestly, who else steps up to address the issues of the world?
He does carry a heavy burden. And I don’t believe it’s some power grab but actual concern for society and spreading the gospel message. All one has to do is listen to Pope Benedict’s talks.
So, while people cry that he just mind his own business. Nobody else seems to step up and speak out against the evils and concerns of society that is rocking the world everywhere. We can’t continue to live in the past. It’s not the 19th century.

People need a moral voice in the world. And that is why the Pope has asked the Russian Orthodox church to join him in combating secularism, even though they refuse communion. Is this the actions of a supreme tyrant hellbent on domination?

People need to bury the Jack Chick type paranoia and hysteria when it comes to the Pope. Whether you believe it or not he does believe he is working within God’s will. And for myself, I believe he is guided by the Holy Spirit (just listen to his words)