I wish the Greek Orthodox would reunite with us

[dzheremi]

Well, I can really only speak to the Coptic side of things, and then only to a limited extent (I’ve only been a member of this church under two popes so far…like anyone else under the age of 44, actually). The Coptic Church is often thought of even by people within the communion as being the most centralized in terms of the powers exercised by the Pope, but this needs to be contextualized a bit (and there are several books that attempt to do this, if you’re curious about a little history of how it got his way; probably the easiest to grasp is Samuel Tadros’ recent book Homeland Lost: The Egyptian and Coptic Quest for Modernity, which is available via Amazon). For one thing, often in the past – even the very recent past – the powers assumed by the Pope have been won at least partly as a result of the struggles that the church and its leadership have faced in dealing with the adversarial Egyptian state, as with HH Pope Shenouda III’s exile by Sadat, 1981-1985. I don’t want to make too strong a case here, just to reiterate what Coptic friends have told me, which is essentially that a Patriarch who is seen as a strong leader, willing to stand up to the state, etc. often doesn’t confine is strong will to only getting into disagreements with the president. It needs to be remembered that the immediate environment of the day in HH Pope Shenouda III’s case directly pitted the Church against the state (both in terms of what HH had challenged Sadat on that got him exiled in the first place, and in Sadat’s response). Following the forced exile of HH, Sadat had ordered a committee of five bishops to find a replacement for HH. The committee instead ruled that HH was the sole legitimate Patriarch of the Coptic Church, and could not be replaced while he lived. Sadat was struck down only about a month later, and although it would be four more years before HH would be returned to his throne by presidential decree, the perception of the people and many leaders of the Church that he had tangled with the President and the Islamists and won, combined of course with his role in the Sunday School movement and the revival of Christian education as a bishop under his predecessor, HH Pope Kyrillos VI, gave him enormous power in a political and social sense to shape the Church according to his vision of it. While I think some parts of this analysis are overstating the case, a lengthy quote from the aforementioned book makes clear both the good and bad of the modern system that was largely set up by HH Pope Shenouda III and hence has of course been inherited by his successor, our current Pope, HH Pope Tawadros III (who has indicated in some interesting ways that he is a different pope that his predecessor; he has stated many times already his belief that we need to get back to the more conciliar model that is natural for us and a more direct continuation of our historical ecclesiology “We are a conciliar church, not a Papal one”, etc.)

From Samuel Tawadros Paradise Lost (p. 189-191; emphasis added):

Pope Shenouda III (r.1971-2012) had survived the rule of President Sadat. During his forty-year reign he managed to not only transform the church along the lines of his revivalist vision, but more importantly to institutionalize those changes making them impossible to reverse. Today’s Coptic Church as an institution is built solely on his vision.

Pope Shenouda had inherited a Holy Synod composed of twenty-six bishops. …] Given the Coptic understanding of the pope as merely first among equals, Shenouda had to move cautiously. The powers he had at his disposal however were not small; chief among them was the fact that he alone could consecrate new bishops. He used that weapon extensively in three ways. First, he dramatically increased the number of general bishops. He had inherited two general bishops from Pope Kyrillos and during his reign he consecrated forty-five more. …] Secondly, the enormous expansion of the Coptic Church abroad allowed him to create new dioceses. …] Thirdly and most importantly upon the death of a bishop the Pope divided his diocese into smaller ones, Qena into four, and Beni Suef into five. The result was to increase the number of bishops inside Egypt from twenty-one to forty-eight. …] Outliving all of his competitors, Pope Shenouda had time on his side. The Holy Synod of the Coptic Church is today composed of ninety-six bishops only one of whom, Metropolitan Mikhail of Asyut, was consecrated by a previous pope.

This move was not purely a political one, though without a doubt it allowed the pope absolute control of the church. The old bishops had ruled over large dioceses and some of them had had hardly any effective contact with their congregation. The expansion of the church’s role in the lives of Copts and their population increase meant that smaller dioceses were required to effectively serve a growing population. …] Nonetheless by virtue of his long reign and the number of bishops he consecrated, Shenouda had made the position of bishop much less powerful than it had been in the past with no individual bishop able to mount a challenge to his authority. Many of the new bishops had been the pope’s disciples before entering the monastery and most shared his vision for the church. The huge expansion in the number of bishops was not however without its negative aspects as new bishops were often chosen after spending only a very short period in the monasteries.

(cont’d. below)

 

[dzheremi]

You can see by this, I hope, that there is nothing in the way that the Church views its patriarch that is different than any other Orthodox church would (i.e., he is considered to be first among equals relative to the other bishops of his Church), but that often due to historical circumstance, the COC has granted more powers to its Patriarch than might seem usual (and that’s not just a matter of perception; that’s reality, too). I highlighted here the case of HH Pope Shenouda III because in a lot ways it does represent something unique in the COC’s history, given how he oversaw the massive worldwide expansion of the Church, reigned for 40 years, etc. But some of the things he did were laid down first by others, e.g., the creation of “general bishops” (which I personally loathe as a concept, but y’know…nobody cares…haha) can be traced back to his predecessor, though he certainly expanded their role in the church beyond anything HH Pope Cyril VI had done. One of the challenges of the modern COC under HH Pope Tawadros II is to figure out exactly how to work within the framework set up by HH Pope Shenouda III to steer the church back to a more conciliar model that is also responsive to the needs of the growing church. From what I’ve seen, HH Pope Tawadros II is walking something a fine line, and has made some good advances toward helping the Church in some of its trouble spots (e.g., Canada finally has a bishop of its own in the person of HG Bishop Mina; maybe now he can address the problems of the various protestantizing “missionary churches” of particular charismatic priests that have long had no effective overseer, just as HH Pope Tawadros II recently sent a committee of bishops to investigate complaints of similar poison being spread in D.C.-area churches). There remains a lot of work to be done, often because it seems that not much time goes by between one Egypt-internal crisis and another, all of which negatively affect the Church as a whole (for example, the locum tenens between HH Pope Shenouda III and the current pope, HE Metropolitan Pachomios, made all candidates to the papacy promise to work within their first years to amend the controversial and outdated bylaws for election, drawn up in the 1950s at a time when the state was once again interfering with the Church to no good ends; since that time, however, Egypt has been plunged into Islamist anarchy with incidents of unprecedented violence such as the attack on the Cathedral that have drawn the leadership’s, including the Pope’s, attention away from that promise to its far more immediate and pressing circumstances).

 

[KathleenGee]

I am hoping to go through the many informative posts this pm.

But didn’t John Paul II go to also ask forgiveness for what the Normans did so long ago…and before that didn’t the Orthodox likewise do wrong to the Latin merchants there so many years prior?? Sounds cultural rather than religious…

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am hoping to go through the many informative posts this pm.

But didn’t John Paul II go to also ask forgiveness for what the Normans did so long ago…and before that didn’t the Orthodox likewise do wrong to the Latin merchants there so many years prior?? Sounds cultural rather than religious…

One hears a lot about the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders, but what is often passed over in silence is the Massacre of the Latins which occurred 20 years earlier and may have been part of the rationale of those who sought payback two decades later.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

 

[dronald]

One hears a lot about the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders, but what is often passed over in silence is the Massacre of the Latins which occurred 20 years earlier and may have been part of the rationale of those who sought payback two decades later.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

Did these people even know what the Bible said? Or did they just not care?

 

[guanophore]

True enough, but then certainly the fact that the majority of that world does not recognize his jurisdiction or his role to be as he or your church believe it to be must count for something, right? At least in the context of ecumenical dialogue, if we are to have any.

If the Apostolic teaching in true, and the Petrine Gifts were passed along to his successors, then yes, we must believe that he has indeed been chosen to feed the flock, and to strengthen the brethren. As Peter was, so is he the visible sign of Christian unity.

 I mean, my Church calls our Pope "The Judge of the Universe", but we do not expect nor even particularly care if those outside of us would think this to be the case. It is a particular title, developed in a particular context, with a particular meaning that is not shared by, e.g., Roman Catholics, Protestants, etc.

To some extent, all Bishops carry such responsibility, as successors of the Apostles. Yours just demonstrated how this service might be made manifest in the affairs of those with sensual power.

1 Cor 6:2-3
3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!

Protestants may be considered differently than Orthodox precisely because they are the spiritual children of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church, as you yourself recognized by writing that their existence is to be laid entirely at the feet of the Roman Patriarch some posts ago. I would think a better example might be made out of Rome’s indelible mark theology, whereby I have had several of my former co-religionists claim that I am still beholden to the Roman Pontiff and am still technically a Roman Catholic in some way, despite having very explicitly rejected all the distinctives involved in claiming that identity some time ago, and again explicitly and very publicly at my baptism into the Orthodox Church in May of 2012. This means nothing to them, of course, because “once a Catholic always a Catholic”, so it does not matter that the Church I am in now holds no such similar view (in other words, if I were to leave the Orthodox Church and repudiate its teachings, as I have done in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, I would not be Orthodox anymore).

We might say similarly (and in fact, we do, if there is reason to) that it does not matter that the Roman Pope believes that he has been given this or that power or jurisdiction. His belief in the reality of those prerogatives (or his entire church’s belief in the reality of the same) do not actually bring them into existence. They are not real (from the Orthodox point of view) just because you have built an ecclesiology around them that seems to require them in order for the church to function as your communion has claimed that Jesus Christ willed it to function. The RCC is quite simply mistaken in these notions, as RCs hold that we are likewise mistaken in not holding to them, as they wrongly claim that the whole church once did.

If there is a way that this obstacle may be overcome, it is probably not to be found by simply reiterating our respective positions and saying “Just because yon don’t see things as we do doesn’t mean that we are not in fact right.” (If you meant something else by stating “even if the jurisdiction is not recognized by the independent community that does not keep it from existing”, then I apologize and welcome correction; I am at a loss as to how else to interpret those words, however.)

We are all fighting over different interpretations of the same history. In that I am glad that I have quite literally far less to fight over with either of you than the two communions mentioned in the OP have to fight over with each other. (Read: If you think that things like Universal Jurisdiction et al. seem patently wrong to the Byzantines when drawing on the first 1000 years of shared ecclesiastical history with the Latins, just imagine how absurd they must seem to those whose cut-off line in terms of shared history to examine ends some 600 years before that. You can point to Leo I or later Popes, and many later developments that do in their own way point to a centralization of power and governance of the Roman Catholic Pope in the West, and we will sit here, like the Biz Markie of apostolic Christianity, scratching our beards and saying “Yes, fine, but what does that have to do with us?” So it is a somewhat daring and at the same time quite reasonable suggestion, which I have heard from several Byzantine friends on these very boards, that Roman Catholics and sometimes also their own leaders are focused on the wrong schism, at least if they’re more interested in results than photographs…but I digress…and often…)

 

[dzheremi]

If the Apostolic teaching in true, and the Petrine Gifts were passed along to his successors, then yes, we must believe that he has indeed been chosen to feed the flock, and to strengthen the brethren. As Peter was, so is he the visible sign of Christian unity.

We would (and do) disagree at even that very basic level, however, in that it is not an Apostolic teaching that “the Petrine Office was passed along to his successors” (at least not in any sense beyond what is demonstrable by history, namely that the apostles to the various peoples and lands ordained men to carry on as bishops in those sees which they established, who then ordained men to carry on after them, on and on down to the present day; this is very different than the idea of there being a distinct “Petrine office” that involves some other kind of office beyond being a bishop; that is a uniquely Roman Catholic teaching, not found in the writings of the apostles or the Early Church Fathers).

“As Peter was, so he is the visible sign of Christian unity” only works if you make the equational leap of Roman Pope = Peter, in perpetuity throughout the universe, which obviously no other church does, and again is not found in the teachings of the apostles (how could it be when the Roman Papacy did not develop its current prerogatives until such a late date?).

To some extent, all Bishops carry such responsibility, as successors of the Apostles. Yours just demonstrated how this service might be made manifest in the affairs of those with sensual power.

“Sensual” power? Erm…what is it that you say I have demonstrated, exactly?

 

[wynd]

You can see by this, I hope, that there is nothing in the way that the Church views its patriarch that is different than any other Orthodox church would (i.e., he is considered to be first among equals relative to the other bishops of his Church), but that often due to historical circumstance, the COC has granted more powers to its Patriarch than might seem usual (and that’s not just a matter of perception; that’s reality, too). I highlighted here the case of HH Pope Shenouda III because in a lot ways it does represent something unique in the COC’s history, given how he oversaw the massive worldwide expansion of the Church, reigned for 40 years, etc. But some of the things he did were laid down first by others, e.g., the creation of “general bishops” (which I personally loathe as a concept, but y’know…nobody cares…haha) can be traced back to his predecessor, though he certainly expanded their role in the church beyond anything HH Pope Cyril VI had done. One of the challenges of the modern COC under HH Pope Tawadros II is to figure out exactly how to work within the framework set up by HH Pope Shenouda III to steer the church back to a more conciliar model that is also responsive to the needs of the growing church. From what I’ve seen, HH Pope Tawadros II is walking something a fine line, and has made some good advances toward helping the Church in some of its trouble spots (e.g., Canada finally has a bishop of its own in the person of HG Bishop Mina; maybe now he can address the problems of the various protestantizing “missionary churches” of particular charismatic priests that have long had no effective overseer, just as HH Pope Tawadros II recently sent a committee of bishops to investigate complaints of similar poison being spread in D.C.-area churches). There remains a lot of work to be done, often because it seems that not much time goes by between one Egypt-internal crisis and another, all of which negatively affect the Church as a whole (for example, the locum tenens between HH Pope Shenouda III and the current pope, HE Metropolitan Pachomios, made all candidates to the papacy promise to work within their first years to amend the controversial and outdated bylaws for election, drawn up in the 1950s at a time when the state was once again interfering with the Church to no good ends; since that time, however, Egypt has been plunged into Islamist anarchy with incidents of unprecedented violence such as the attack on the Cathedral that have drawn the leadership’s, including the Pope’s, attention away from that promise to its far more immediate and pressing circumstances).

Great series of posts, thank you very much.

Maybe this is a topic for another thread, but I’m curious about the line you quoted: “During his forty-year reign he managed to not only transform the church along the lines of his revivalist vision, but more importantly to institutionalize those changes making them impossible to reverse. Today’s Coptic Church as an institution is built solely on his vision.” What changes did he implement and institutionalize, aside from the mass creation of dioceses?

 

[dzheremi]

That’s probably better asked of the author, as the book goes into some detail regarding HH Pope Shenouda III’s vision, but this is probably not the forum in which to explore it, as it involves some positive but also quite negative evaluation of the impact of Western, specifically Catholic and Protestant, missionaries in Egypt. Some ideas that we took from them were good, while some…well, let’s just say that a minority of Copts still argue today about the language reform/Europeanization of the pronunciation of Coptic, for instance, which occurred in the mid-1800s! (the time of HH Pope Kyrillos IV, who is known as the “Father of Reform” for the many ways in which he attempted to reform the Church (mainly in the area of education and technology; the pronunciation reform, for instance, was probably not his idea but was hatched by a man named Erian Moftah who taught Coptic at the Clerical College at that time and promoted the new pronunciation in anticipation of a reunion with the Greeks in Egypt that never actually happened…or so the story goes).

 

[spina1953]

I have a question and I hope that it is not a silly one but if the Orthodox do not recognize the Pope in Rome as head of the universal Church and each Patriarch has jurisdiction over his area of control, why if there were twelve Apostles there are not twelve Patriarchs? instead of I think five? Even if every Patriarch is independent of the other, still would there not be one who is the leader just as Peter was?

 

[dzheremi]

I’m confused by your question. It appears by your mention of the five sees you are probably thinking of the Pentarchy, the idea that the five Chalcedonian Patriarchs of the traditionally important (and conciliarily-recognized) sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem are to govern the Church. I mention this as a Chalcedonian idea specifically since it was at the Council of Trullo of 692 that this idea was given formal backing by a church council (though as an idea it predates that council by some time, dating back to Emperor Justinian in the mid-6th century), but also because there are sees outside of the Chalcedonian world that are reckoned by their holders or inheritors as being apostolic but obviously are not included in this idea, such as those of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in Mestopoamia (no longer existing, but very important in the history of the Church of the East; said to be founded by Thomas, Bartholomew, and Thaddeus of Edessa) and Armenia (Thaddeus/Jude and Bartholomew).

 

[spina1953]

I’m confused by your question. It appears by your mention of the five sees you are probably thinking of the Pentarchy, the idea that the five Chalcedonian Patriarchs of the traditionally important (and conciliarily-recognized) sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem are to govern the Church. I mention this as a Chalcedonian idea specifically since it was at the Council of Trullo of 692 that this idea was given formal backing by a church council (though as an idea it predates that council by some time, dating back to Emperor Justinian in the mid-6th century), but also because there are sees outside of the Chalcedonian world that are reckoned by their holders or inheritors as being apostolic but obviously are not included in this idea, such as those of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in Mestopoamia (no longer existing, but very important in the history of the Church of the East; said to be founded by Thomas, Bartholomew, and Thaddeus of Edessa) and Armenia (Thaddeus/Jude and Bartholomew).

Hi dzheremi: I am not sure if you are addressing my question but if you are, I understand what you are saying I think. I read that that the COC had second place till I think the Council of Chalcedon in 451 in which the Patriarch of Constantsanople got the second place which lead me to believe that it more a political thing than religious and then to top it off claimed the COC was in heresy claiming monophysitisn which in fact was not true of the Coptic Church and very unfair if one ever asks me. but it just seemed to me that since there were 12 Apostles then there should be 12 Patriarchs, but then I am only asking as I am just wanting to learn more about the different Orthodox Churches and the reasons as to why the separation that seemingly can not be resolved.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi dzheremi: I am not sure if you are addressing my question but if you are, I understand what you are saying I think.

I’m not sure I am either, since I don’t know if I’ve understood your question. You are asking why are there only five sees if there were 12 apostles, right? My reply was that there are more apostolic sees than just those five, but since that whole idea of the Pentarchy developed most clearly post-Chalcedon, some of the sees that are counted as apostolic sees outside of the Chalcedonian division of the world aren’t considered in the same light as Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem by the people who hold to that idea of Church governance (and also note that several sees were founded by more than one person, so that’s another reason why there are 12 sees just because there 12 apostles).

Or did you mean it literally when you wrote “Patriarchs”, as in that every apostolic see should have a corresponding Patriarch? Because that’s already the case, to excess. In some cases, like Antioch, there are many claimants, between the Non-Chalcedonian, Byzantine Chalcedonian, and Byzantine and Syriac Catholic Patriarchs. There are three even if we’re only looking at the Latin communion: Gregory III Laham Melkite Greek Catholics, Bechara Boutros Al-Raei of the Syriac Maronites, and Ignatius Joseph III Younan of the Syriac Catholics.

I read that that the COC had second place till I think the Council of Chalcedon in 451 in which the Patriarch of Constantsanople got the second place

I think you may have confused Chalcedon (451) with Constantinople (381). If I recall correctly, Constantinople was elevated at the council held there, but it was Jerusalem that was elevated at Chalcedon. I’m sure a Chalcedonian will correct me if I am wrong.

but it just seemed to me that since there were 12 Apostles then there should be 12 Patriarchs

But again, not every apostle established his own separate see. St. Mark was not one of the 12 (he was one of the 70), but we still count the see he established at Alexandria as being Apostolic (via St. Peter, from whom St. Mark learned Christian doctrine). An example could be made again of Antioch, which was founded by not one but two apostles (St. Peter and St. Paul). By contrast, I am not aware of any see current or historical that claims to have been founded by Simon the Zealot, though some traditions put him together with St. Jude/Thaddeus as having gone to Armenia, Persia, and maybe even Lebanon.

 

[spina1953]

I’m not sure I am either, since I don’t know if I’ve understood your question. You are asking why are there only five sees if there were 12 apostles, right? My reply was that there are more apostolic sees than just those five, but since that whole idea of the Pentarchy developed most clearly post-Chalcedon, some of the sees that are counted as apostolic sees outside of the Chalcedonian division of the world aren’t considered in the same light as Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem by the people who hold to that idea of Church governance (and also note that several sees were founded by more than one person, so that’s another reason why there are 12 sees just because there 12 apostles).

Or did you mean it literally when you wrote “Patriarchs”, as in that every apostolic see should have a corresponding Patriarch? Because that’s already the case, to excess. In some cases, like Antioch, there are many claimants, between the Non-Chalcedonian, Byzantine Chalcedonian, and Byzantine and Syriac Catholic Patriarchs. There are three even if we’re only looking at the Latin communion: Gregory III Laham Melkite Greek Catholics, Bechara Boutros Al-Raei of the Syriac Maronites, and Ignatius Joseph III Younan of the Syriac Catholics.

I think you may have confused Chalcedon (451) with Constantinople (381). If I recall correctly, Constantinople was elevated at the council held there, but it was Jerusalem that was elevated at Chalcedon. I’m sure a Chalcedonian will correct me if I am wrong.

But again, not every apostle established his own separate see. St. Mark was not one of the 12 (he was one of the 70), but we still count the see he established at Alexandria as being Apostolic (via St. Peter, from whom St. Mark learned Christian doctrine). An example could be made again of Antioch, which was founded by not one but two apostles (St. Peter and St. Paul). By contrast, I am not aware of any see current or historical that claims to have been founded by Simon the Zealot, though some traditions put him together with St. Jude/Thaddeus as having gone to Armenia, Persia, and maybe even Lebanon.

Thank you for your information and insight, Very good of you to respond to my question. Again thanks so very much.

 

[guanophore]

this is very different than the idea of there being a distinct “Petrine office” that involves some other kind of office beyond being a bishop; that is a uniquely Roman Catholic teaching, not found in the writings of the apostles or the Early Church Fathers).

Do you believe that Peter was given certain responsibilities by Christ that were notn given to anyone else?

“As Peter was, so he is the visible sign of Christian unity” only works if you make the equational leap of Roman Pope = Peter, in perpetuity throughout the universe

I don’t think so. I see the Apostles working in unity in the NT, and Peter taking a lead roles as spokesman. Jesus says to the Apostles that satan has demanded to sift them, but Jesus replies “but I have prayed for you” (singular) to Peter. From that I think that anyone who wants to get in on Jesus’ prayer must get in with Peter.

Are not all the successors of Bishops traced back “in perpetuity”? Do not all your bishops trace their lines back to the Apostles?

which obviously no other church does, and again is not found in the te’ achings of the apostles (how could it be when the Roman Papacy did not develop its current prerogatives until such a late date?).

I can certainly concede that the roles of all Bishops developed over time, as with all the offices mentioned in the NT (priests and deacons as well).

I believe that the gifts and charge given to Peter was meant by Jesus for the flock, and that the gifts and call of God are irrevocable.

I also believe that Jesus’ was clear about His Kingdom not being of this world. When the Bishop of Rome accepted the secular title of Pontiff and became involved in secular government, a foothold was created for corruption to enter into the role of the Bishops all over the West.

It appears that the twisting of “strenghten your brethren” resulted in an application to political and economic power, rather than spiritual service.

“Sensual” power? Erm…what is it that you say I have demonstrated, exactly?

Sorry, that is what I get for multitasking! I meant secular power. People who work with sexual abuse victims really should not try to replly to posts while at work!

 

[dzheremi]

Do you believe that Peter was given certain responsibilities by Christ that were notn given to anyone else?

I believe that St. Peter is the prince of the apostles, as is rather standard Orthodox belief.

I do not believe that this means anything regarding the establishment of a uniquely “Petrine office” that was passed down from Roman bishop to Roman bishop, because neither I nor my Church believe in any such thing.

I don’t think so. I see the Apostles working in unity in the NT, and Peter taking a lead roles as spokesman.

Which is entirely reasonable, from a Roman Catholic viewpoint. I just don’t agree.

Jesus says to the Apostles that satan has demanded to sift them, but Jesus replies “but I have prayed for you” (singular) to Peter. From that I think that anyone who wants to get in on Jesus’ prayer must get in with Peter.

Okay. We already pray quite a bit in praise of St. Peter, and are most certainly “in” with St. Peter, though I know that Catholics would disagree.

Are not all the successors of Bishops traced back “in perpetuity”? Do not all your bishops trace their lines back to the Apostles?

Absolutely. My point is that this identification does not work the other way around. While, for instance, HH Moran Mor Aphrem II is the legitimate successor to St. Peter in the eyes of my Church, we do not make any kind of typological identification of HH with St. Peter such that when the Bible mentions this or that about St. Peter, we think “Ah! So this is really talking about HH Moran Mor Aphrem! Moran Mor Aphrem is the greatest of the Patriarchs because St. Peter was the prince of the apostles!”, which is what it seems like Latins are doing when they anachronistically apply everything that was said of St. Peter or given to him to their Pope. Only Rome does this, and it is not supportable. St. Mark the Evangelist, the Apostle to Egypt, was a Hellenized Libyan Jew who was martyred in Egypt in 68 AD. HH Pope Tawadros II, while sitting upon the same throne established by St. Mark and hence being in the apostolic line that dates back to the founding of the Church itself, was born in 1952 in Mansoura, on the banks of the Nile, and has yet to be martyred. In Orthodoxy as in Catholicism, the apostle establishes the see and preaches the true Christian faith to the people, leaving behind others to carry on his work. So long as the apostolic faith is maintained, we can say that we have maintained the apostolic succession begun by whoever first enlightened the people at that location. But the powers, authority, etc. that he may exercise at the church’s discretion are not possessed of the bishop himself, but rather by the Church which he serves. In Orthodoxy, where there are still mechanisms (and sadly sometimes reasons) to depose an errant bishop, this is manifest in the Synod which, while being chaired by the Bishop, carries with it the power to censure or depose him for the good of the Church. Again, I would ask you to consider what – if “Peter has spoken through Leo!” (or similar quotes from the early days of the Church that many Catholics take to confer special powers to their bishop) is an affirmation of the Bishop of Rome’s authority as being analogous to that of St. Peter among the apostles – is the fate of St. Peter in the period between Roman Popes, or what it means that previous Roman Popes long ago have been condemned by the Church (e.g., Honorius), or any of these other things. Are these actions against St. Peter? Of course not. Nobody would think that. And yet, when such-and-such and exalted thing is said of St. Peter or of Rome (rightly!), RCs do not hesitate to latch onto it as substantiating their belief in the identification of their Pope with St. Peter forever and ever throughout the universe. It does not make sense.

Basically it doesn’t come down to “Do you have apostolic succession in terms of a big list of names from St. _____ to your current Patriarch?”, but rather “What is the proper understanding of apostolic succession and attendant authority in your communion?” In the Orthodox Church, as I have shown both in my own words and from a modern Coptic historian, apostolic authority does not place the Patriarch above his brother bishops, and it certainly does not make him leader and ruler of the whole church all because Jesus said this or that to Peter. Again, that is simply not supportable from the way we look at things. (And keep in mind I am writing this from the point of view of someone who belongs to probably the most centralized of any Church that carries the word “Orthodox” in its official name.)

The Latins go too far, basically. Peter may have been the first Roman Pope, but the Roman Pope is not therefore Peter (and never was, and never will be), and authority does not transfer like currency from one man to another, but rather is possessed by the entire Church by virtue of its apostolic faith. Maybe if we believed like the RCC does that our Patriarchs cannot err then the Roman stance would make more sense, but that is not the belief of the Orthodox Church.

 

[guanophore]

I believe that St. Peter is the prince of the apostles, as is rather standard Orthodox belief.

Perhaps you can help me understand what that means?

I do not believe that this means anything regarding the establishment of a uniquely “Petrine office” that was passed down from Roman bishop to Roman bishop, because neither I nor my Church believe in any such thing.

For the sake of discussion,I will just accept your statement. It is difficult for me to wrap my mind around the thought that the Church would not continue to need the Petrine gifts so long as she sojourns in this world but I am trying to see this from another point of view.

Which is entirely reasonable, from a Roman Catholic viewpoint. I just don’t agree.

Don’t agree with which part? that all the Apostles acted in unity, or that Peter was a spokesman for them?

Okay.We already pray quite a bit in praise of St. Peter and are most certainly “in” with St. Peter, though I know that Catholics would disagree.

I am not so sure that is true. The Catechism says:
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

The difference seems to be more of what it means to be “in” with Peter.
dzheremi;12223356:

. My point is that this identification does not work the other way around. While, for instance, HH Moran Mor Aphrem II is the

legitimate successor to St. Peter in the eyes of my Church, we do not make any kind of typological identification of HH with St. Peter such that when the Bible mentions this or that about St. Peter, we think “Ah! So this is really talking about HH Moran Mor Aphrem! Moran Mor Aphrem is the greatest of the Patriarchs because St. Peter was the prince of the apostles!”, which is what it seems like Latins are doing when they anachronistically apply everything that was said of St. Peter or given to him to their Pope. Only Rome does this, and it is not supportable.

Yes I understand the line of Bishops ordained by Peter in Antioch is older than the line in Rome.

. So long as the apostolic faith is maintained, we can say that we have maintained the apostolic succession begun by whoever first enlightened the people at that location. But the powers, authority, etc. that he may exercise at the church's discretion are not possessed *of the bishop himself*

, but rather by the Church which he serves. In Orthodoxy, where there are still mechanisms (and sadly sometimes reasons) to depose an errant bishop, this is manifest in the Synod which, while being chaired by the Bishop, carries with it the power to censure or depose him for the good of the Church.

I can see why this seems like a model much more continuous with that of the early church. I think conflation with secular matters and titles severly wounded th concept of servant leadership.

Again, I would ask you to consider what – if “Peter has spoken through Leo!” (or similar quotes from the early days of the Church that many Catholics take to confer special powers to their bishop) is an affirmation of the Bishop of Rome’s authority as being analogous to that of St. Peter among the apostles – is the fate of St. Peter in the period between Roman Popes, or what it means that previous Roman Popes long ago have been condemned by the Church (e.g., Honorius), or any of these other things. Are these actions against St. Peter?

Of course not. Nobody would think that. And yet, when such-and-such and exalted thing is said of St. Peter or of Rome (rightly!), RCs do not hesitate to latch onto it as substantiating their belief in the identification of their Pope with St. Peter forever and ever throughout the universe. It does not make sense. The Latins go too far, basically. Peter may have been the first Roman Pope, but the Roman Pope is not therefore Peter (and never was, and never will be), and authority does not transfer like currency from one man to another, but rather is possessed by the entire Church by virtue of its apostolic faith.

Not like currency, but more like Holy Orders. Though there is a priesthood of all believers, and the whole church does share in the One Faith, not all are called to the service as a Bishop. If authority does not transfer, then there really are no successors to the apostles, no Holy Orders at all!

 Maybe if we believed like the RCC does that our Patriarchs cannot err then the Roman stance would make more sense, but that is not the belief of the Orthodox Church.

You seem to be misinformed, dzheremi, or perhaps this is just some frustrated calumny? RCC does not believe any such thing.

 

[dzheremi]

Perhaps you can help me understand what that means?

It is recognized by all in the Orthodox Church that St. Peter was chosen by the Lord to shepherd the flock and teach the Word of God to all. For instance, in that he confessed first Jesus Christ the Messiah and Son of God, and Our Lord told him that upon this rock of his confession of faith He would build His Church, it is right that St. Peter be considered to be first. After all, he out of all the apostles made the first confession upon which our faith is built. And he did indeed teach our apostle St. Mark the true Christian doctrine. And shored up his bretheren, and many other things (all of those things that Catholics would say about what is recorded in scripture to have happened involving St. Peter, but perhaps with an eye toward establishing a special place for their patriarch via St. Peter). Granted, in the Coptic Orthodox Church in particular (I cannot speak for other churches), it is most traditional to pair St. Peter and St. Paul together, as is obvious in our hymns. But it is important to note as well that the Coptic practice is that when a church or monastery is named after two saints, the one who is considered greatest is listed first, and hence you will find no church which will have St. Mary listed after another saint, but also you will find no church that will have St. Paul (or St. Mina, or St. Abanoub, or St. Moses, or whoever) listed before St. Peter. So in these sorts of ways, in very basic things, we recognize the role of St. Peter as being special, but at the same time never separate from that of others. As an example, if you read the text of the hymn for the apostles fast (which celebrates the lives and matrydom of St. Peter and St. Paul) chanted during that time (here), you will see that St. Peter is mentioned first, and St. Paul after him. This is not a mistake, because even as we single them out for special recognition, we do not forget which is first because…well, like I said, because he was first. It has nothing to do with him being ‘better’ or higher or greater in terms of having authority over the others, but rather that we recognize that St. Peter did play a special role by virtue of the things he did and when he did them.

For the sake of discussion,I will just accept your statement. It is difficult for me to wrap my mind around the thought that the Church would not continue to need the Petrine gifts so long as she sojourns in this world but I am trying to see this from another point of view.

But what particular gifts was St. Peter given that were not also given to the others? I know that RCs read “the keys to bind and loose” as being given specifically to Peter, but this is not the Orthodox understanding, particularly as that same power was given to the others only a little bit later. While each apostle no doubt had their own personality and strengths and weaknesses (they were people, same as anyone), I reject the idea that there are specifically “Petrine” gifts to be held onto by Rome or Antioch or anyone to exclusion of others. That’s bad ecclesiology, bad hermeneutics, bad patristics…that’s just plain bad. To say that St. Peter had a special role or a special place in the Church is not to say that he was a different kind of thing than any of the other apostles, or that things were given to him that were not given to others. Such ideas are uncomfortably close to gnosticism of a sort, or at any rate discard Christ’s teaching that they should all be great by receiving people in His name (Luke 9:46-48), not by arguing in a prideful fashion. Even at the transfiguration, which Peter witnessed, the Lord was not revealed to St. Peter alone, but rather to Peter, James, and John.

Don’t agree with which part? that all the Apostles acted in unity, or that Peter was a spokesman for them?

That Peter’s actions translate into the sort of hierarchy and centralization of authority that you see in the RCC.

The difference seems to be more of what it means to be “in” with Peter.

Of course. That is what I meant by saying that Catholics would disagree. We say that we are in full, complete, and perfect union with St. Peter and indeed all of the Apostles, and that we do not need to be in sacramental union with Rome, a beloved but sadly errant church, for that to be the case. I don’t imagine any Catholic would agree with that.

(cont’d. below)

 

[spina1953]

After reading the last few posts, it makes me wonder concerning if Peter is not the head of the Church and as in the Orthodox community different Patriarchs run their Churches independent of the other Patriarchs, Then it seems to me that any Patriarch can decide what is and what is not and the other Patriarchs can not say differently since there is no recognized leader or head of the whole but of the part. If Peter is first among equals what this seems to say is that all are equal and have equal say and no one can over rule the other or say that one is wrong while the other is right or correct.

It seems to me that Peter was the accepted leader of the group of Apostles and their spokesperson during the time when Jesus was teaching, and after words as in Acts Peter seemed to be still the leader. So what I am now thinking based on what has been so far said concerning Peter’s role and the other Apostles and first among equals is meaning that each and every Apostle had equal authority, no more or no less than what Peter had, so when the Apostles each went off to preach and teach the Good News Peter no longer held any real authority, but was just equal with the other Apostles and so did not have the authority to tell any of the other Apostles or any Church for that matter what is and what is not.

I would like to point out that Mark was not an Apostle, not one of the 12, so Mark is not any different than St. Ignatius of Antioch who was I think appointed by Peter, and Ignatius is not considered an Apostles even though he was appointed by Peter. If the Pope of COC is the successor of Peter than so to would be St. Ignatius since Antioch is older than the COC. IMHO.

 

[wynd]

After reading the last few posts, it makes me wonder concerning if Peter is not the head of the Church and as in the Orthodox community different Patriarchs run their Churches independent of the other Patriarchs, Then it seems to me that any Patriarch can decide what is and what is not and the other Patriarchs can not say differently since there is no recognized leader or head of the whole but of the part. If Peter is first among equals what this seems to say is that all are equal and have equal say and no one can over rule the other or say that one is wrong while the other is right or correct.

All bishops, including patriarchs/metropolitans/heads of local Churches, are bound by the Orthodox faith and traditions. They are not mini-Popes with unlimited authority over their local Church, and a bishop of any level who deviates from the faith will be called out.

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”