If the Papacy was really meant to be only honorary, then what about the Orthodox bishops?

[josephback]

My point being, from what principle do the Orthodox bishops claim their authority. I assume they do claim authority over the priests. If one has rejected the pope as bishop of bishops, then by what authority do the Orthodox bishops still claim authority over those under them? Does not the principle of a heirarchy fall apart under such thinking? Either the heirarchy is a heirarchy or it isn’t. And don’t give the line that “Jesus is the head of the Church”…that is true but the Orthodox hold that He hasinstituted visible leadership in the clergy. If this is so then why should there not be a visible head(the Pope) to lead in the name of the invisible head(Jesus)? Where do the Orthodox bishops claim their right to rule from if they reject the Pope ruling over them? Does not such a view make war on the concept of Church heirarchy itself? Or are the bishops autonomous? Who polices order and inter-communion among the Orthodox Churches?

 

[WesleyF]

Good point there.The keys of the kingdom were given to Peter alone, and the giving of the keys signifies giving of the presidency (see Isaiah 22).

 

[JonNC]

My point being, from what principle do the Orthodox bishops claim their authority. I assume they do claim authority over the priests. If one has rejected the pope as bishop of bishops, then by what authority do the Orthodox bishops still claim authority over those under them? Does not the principle of a heirarchy fall apart under such thinking? Either the heirarchy is a heirarchy or it isn’t. And don’t give the line that “Jesus is the head of the Church”…that is true but the Orthodox hold that He hasinstituted visible leadership in the clergy. If this is so then why should there not be a visible head(the Pope) to lead in the name of the invisible head(Jesus)? Where do the Orthodox bishops claim their right to rule from if they reject the Pope ruling over them? Does not such a view make war on the concept of Church heirarchy itself? Or are the bishops autonomous? Who polices order and inter-communion among the Orthodox Churches?

It depends on what you mean when you talk about a visable head. The crux of the matter, for me the most vexing, is that Nicea specifically and none of the other early councils generally speak of a primacy that the Bishop of Rome claims for itself now.

Jon

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Good point there.The keys of the kingdom were given to Peter alone, and the giving of the keys signifies giving of the presidency (see Isaiah 22).

Actually St. Peter (in the case of the keys) represents all bishops of the Church. For the historic papal position, see read the sermons of Pope St. Leo the Great (Sermon IV):

“Et quaecumque ligaueris super terram, erunt ligata et in caelis, et quaecumque solueris super terram, erunt soluta et in caelis …Petro enim ideo hoc singulariter creditur, quia cunctis ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur. Manet ergo Petri priuilegium, ubicumque ex ipsius fertur aequitate iudicium.”

“Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, it shall have been bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose, shall have been loosed in heaven …This power is confided to him in a special manner, because the type of Peter is proposed to all the pastors of the Church. Therefore the privilege of Peter dwells wherever judgment is given with his equity”.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

My point being, from what principle do the Orthodox bishops claim their authority. I assume they do claim authority over the priests.

The bishop’s authority over a priest is derived from the very fact that it is the bishop who ordained him.

If one has rejected the pope as bishop of bishops, then by what authority do the Orthodox bishops still claim authority over those under them? Does not the principle of a heirarchy fall apart under such thinking?

No, why would it? There are plenty of examples of hierarchical organizations throughout the world that exist without the presence of a single, earthly head.

Either the heirarchy is a heirarchy or it isn’t. And don’t give the line that “Jesus is the head of the Church”

Well, He is.

…that is true but the Orthodox hold that He hasinstituted visible leadership in the clergy. If this is so then why should there not be a visible head(the Pope) to lead in the name of the invisible head(Jesus)?

Why did Jesus select twelve men? Christ never left us, he still leads the successors of the twelve.

Where do the Orthodox bishops claim their right to rule from if they reject the Pope ruling over them? Does not such a view make war on the concept of Church heirarchy itself? Or are the bishops autonomous? Who polices order and inter-communion among the Orthodox Churches?

Orthodox belief and Orthodox practice are the basis of inter-communion. If a bishop is a heretic, it is the responsibility of the other bishops (as well as his own people) to break communion with him (For more on this, see the 15th canon of the Eighth Ecumenical Council). In the event of a large dispute, a council will be called to resolve the matter. The commitment to the Truth (as well as guidance from the Holy Spirit) is the means by which the Faith is upheld.

 

[lyrikal]

Actually St. Peter (in the case of the keys) represents all bishops of the Church. For the historic papal position, see read the sermons of Pope St. Leo the Great (Sermon IV):

“Et quaecumque ligaueris super terram, erunt ligata et in caelis, et quaecumque solueris super terram, erunt soluta et in caelis …Petro enim ideo hoc singulariter creditur, quia cunctis ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur. Manet ergo Petri priuilegium, ubicumque ex ipsius fertur aequitate iudicium.”

“Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, it shall have been bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose, shall have been loosed in heaven …This power is confided to him in a special manner, because the type of Peter is proposed to all the pastors of the Church. Therefore the privilege of Peter dwells wherever judgment is given with his equity”.

Hi Mark of Ephesus,

In that same sermon, Pope St. Leo the Great said:

“From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church. Thus, although among the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, it is really Peter who rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler. Divine condescension, dearly beloved, has granted to this man in a wonderful and marvelous manner the aggregate of its power; and if there was something that it wanted to be his in common with other leaders, it never gave whatever it did not deny to others except through him.”

-Sermon 4,2 taken from Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 3, page 275.

Elsewhere, he says (in a letter to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica:

But if in that which you believed necessary to be discussed and settled with the brethren, their opinion differs from your own wishes, let all be referred to us, with the minutes of your proceedings attested, that all ambiguities may be removed, and what is pleasing to God decided…The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful: and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests. And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honorable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.
-Letter 14

There are a lot more we can go into but I don’t think it’s necessary. I hope the above suffices to show the context of St. Leo the Great’s understanding of the See of Rome.

God bless you, brother.

 

[josephback]

The bishop’s authority over a priest is derived from the very fact that it is the bishop who ordained him.

Who ordains the bishop? A group of other bishops?

No, why would it? There are plenty of examples of hierarchical organizations throughout the world that exist without the presence of a single, earthly head.
Ok, name one Am I begging the question?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Who ordains the bishop? A group of other bishops?

The fourth canon of Nicaea states:

It is by all means desirable that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops of the province. But if this is difficult because of some pressing necessity or the length of the journey involved, let at least three come together and perform the ordination, but only after the absent bishops have taken part in the vote and given their written consent. But in each province the right of confirming the proceedings belongs to the metropolitan bishop.

The authority to ordain bishops comes from the local synod and the metropolitan bishop, and the ordination must be performed by at least three bishops, just as the fourth canon of Nicaea says. To say that the Pope has the authority to confirm bishops outside of his metropolis (which is the current practice of the RCC) instead of the power being invested in the local metropolitan bishop is in violation of this canon.

 

[L_piperatus]

Or are the bishops autonomous? Who polices order and inter-communion among the Orthodox Churches?

In my observation, the Orthodox bishops are sometimes autonomous sometimes not (sometimes abide by the rulings of certain Holy Synods and Patriarchs they regard as superiors, other times they reject their former superiors and go their own way), and there’s nobody in charge or even capable of policing intercommunion among the Orthodox bishops. Thus, they frequently move in and out of communion with each other.

My observations refer specifically to Eastern Orthodoxy, because I am less familiar with Oriental Orthodoxy.

I will give a few examples of EO Bishops moving in and out of communion with each other:

1. The Old Believer schism within the Russian EOC.

Certain bishops and priests in the 17th century rejected the liturgical reforms promulgated by the Patriarch of Moscow and the Tzar, and broke communion with them. Later on the Old Believers had many more schisms among each other, and as a result numerous schismatic Old Believer Churches formed. Some of these do have bishops and priests with a valid apostolic succession (however others rejected priesthood altogether), but they are not in communion with the MP (Moscow Patriarch).

1. The New Calendar - Florinist (Old Calendar) - Matthewite (Old Calendar) schism within the Greek EOC.

The short story of this is that the bishop of Florin city regarded the New Calendarists (the EP of Constantinople and Greek bishops who adopted the New Calendar around 1922) as potential heretics, and broke communion with them. Bishop Matthew, on the other hand, regarded both the New Calendarists as actual heretics (as opposed to potential heretics), and the Florinists as heretics as well, and broke communion with both of these groups. Thus, the Greek EOC schismed into 3 fractions, each one out of communion with each other: namely the “New Calendarists”, the Florinists, and the Matthewites. All three Churches in schism have valid apostolic succession, but they are out of communion with each other.

1. The New Calendar - Old Calendar schism within the Romanian, Bulgarian, and other EO Churches.

The Old Calendar Romanian EOC is in communion with the other Old Calendar (Greek, Bulgarian, Serb, Russian) EOC, but not with the New Calendar Romanian EOC. Same thing with the Bulgarians. We have valid bishops with apostolic succession at both sides (OC and NC side), but they are out of communion with each other.

1. The Moscow Patriarch breaking communion with the EP of Constantinople.

This happened in the mid-1990s, over a dispute regarding the Estonian EOC. They were out of communion with each other and the Moscow Patriarch stopped remembering the EP in the Diptychs. Later on, they mended their relations and came back into communion with each other.

1. ROCOR breaking communion with the Moscow Patriarch.

ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) believed that the MP has fallen into apostasy in 1927, and broke communion with the MP. They recently mended their relations and re-established communion in 2006.

1. ROCOR out of communion with the Greek, Antiochian, Romanian EOC, in the USA.

ROCOR, being an Old Calendar Church, regarded all mainline New Calendar EOC (such as Greek, Antiochian etc) as heretics, and instructed its faithful not to attend and not to commune in the New Calendar Churches, except in grave necessity where an Old Calendar priest was not available.

1. The Basilian Fathers (EO Bishops and priests with a Russian heritage) establishing full communion with the Catholic Church, and losing communion with mainline EOC such as the Greek and Antiochian.

The Holy Synod of the Basilian Fathers decided to re-establish full communion with Rome and with the Catholic Churches. But the Greek and Antiochian EOC are not happy with this, and I’m sure the reunited MP-ROCOR Russian EOC is even less happier.

1. Various Ukrainian EOC out of communion with each other (and with Moscow).

There was a schism within the Ukrainian EOC after the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. There’s a Ukrainian EOC headed by a Metropolitan, loyal to the Moscow Patriarch. And there’s another Ukrainian EOC with its own Patriarch, out of communion with the other Ukrainian EOC, and also out of communion with Moscow. Moscow does not recognize the legitimacy of this Kiew Patriarch, but the EP of Constantinople does.

1. A similar schism in Estonia.

There’s a Moscow-independent Estonian EOC recognized by the EP, however this is not recognized and it’s out of communion with the MP. And there’s of course another Estonian EOC loyal to Moscow, out of communion with the Moscow-independent faction.

1. The situation of OCA.

The Orthodox Church of America is recognized by Moscow, but not by the EP. I don’t know whether the EP is in communion or out of communion with the OCA.

1. The situation of the Japanese EOC.

There’s a certain Japanese EOC that claims independence from the EP and is recognized by the MP, however the EP does not recognize the Japanese EOC’s claim to independence. I don’t know whether the Japanese EOC and the EP are in communion or, in view of their dispute with each other, are they out of communion with each other.

---

There was a certain Catholic Cardinal responsible for inter-Church relations (maybe Cardinal Kasper but not sure of his name) who said, “we are increasingly aware that the EO Churches do not speak with one unified voice”. That makes it difficult for us Catholics to have a dialogue with them. But I guess a certain fragmentation, similar to that seen with Protestant denominations, is inevitable with the Eastern Orthodox Churches as a consequence of them having rejected the Pope as source of unity.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The most likely case is that the power of the Papacy was somewhere between the modern debate of “primacy of honor” vs “supremacy.”

Any future reunion of the Church (which I doubt will happen anytime soon, but I pray for it) would probably necessitate the Orthodox accepting some kind of papal authority, with the Catholic Church agreeing to significantly scale back his power.

 

[Hesychios]

If one has rejected the pope as bishop of bishops, then by what authority do the Orthodox bishops still claim authority over those under them?

There is no such thing as a ‘bishop of bishops’.

"***See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. …***" St Ignatios of Antioch - to the Smynaeans c 117AD

Good point there…

Not really a good point. It is definitely problematic, the episcopacy does not depend upon the office of Pope, your own church declares this, nullifying the entire argument.

At the same time the priesthood is entirely dependent upon the bishop. Even the early church was lightning clear about this. The bishop makes the priest (delegating to him a portion of his own authority), and the priest may not contemplate a move to another bishop, he needs permission from his own bishop, or he is sent by his bishop.

The Apostolic Canons …

*Canon I.

Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops.

Canon II.

Let a presbyter, deacon, and the rest of the clergy, be ordained by one bishop,

Canon XV.

If any presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the list of the clergy, shall leave his own parish, and go into another, and having entirely forsaken his own, shall make his abode in the other parish without the permission of his own bishop, we ordain that he shall no longer perform divine service; more especially if his own bishop having exhorted him to return he has refused to do so, and persists in his disorderly conduct. But let him communicate there as a layman.

Canon XXXII. (XXXIII.)

If any presbyter or deacon has been excommunicated by a bishop, he may not be received into communion again by any other than by him who excommunicated him, unless it happen that the bishop who excommunicated him be dead.

Canon XXXIX. (XL.)

Let not the presbyters or deacons do anything without the sanction of the bishop; for he it is who is intrusted with the people of the Lord, and of whom will be required the account of their souls.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The most likely case is that the power of the Papacy was somewhere between the modern debate of “primacy of honor” vs “supremacy.”

Any future reunion of the Church (which I doubt will happen anytime soon, but I pray for it) would probably necessitate the Orthodox accepting some kind of papal authority, with the Catholic Church agreeing to significantly scale back his power.

Ah and the lense comes into focus. I would say you are on target right here my brother.

…

Servant of Servants? Is a more appropiate title??

What should we call those who sit in the Chair of Peter, and rightfully what should his “correct” postion be in responsibity?

What if we went back to very early Christainity and placed the equal responsibility in the churchs whom were actually there?? Of course the position of Rome would exist with the Keys as stated in Bible.

Who would make the final decision in a deadlock? And of course by early Christianity also? I fail to see the problem, why wouldn’t your church run, just as it always has? There is no need to fix something which isn’t broken.

You can call it what you want, however the structure comes right out of Aristotle, and there’s no mistaken it. Wrongly implimented its called the USA. Correctly implimented its called Rome today. Each seperate church itself is set-up no different. How could the structure model as a whole be different? We are talking modern democracy.

 

[jam070406]

Hi Mark of Ephesus,

In that same sermon, Pope St. Leo the Great said:

“From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church. Thus, although among the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, it is really Peter who rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler. Divine condescension, dearly beloved, has granted to this man in a wonderful and marvelous manner the aggregate of its power; and if there was something that it wanted to be his in common with other leaders, it never gave whatever it did not deny to others except through him.”

-Sermon 4,2 taken from Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 3,l page 275.

Elsewhere, he says (in a letter to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica:

But if in that which you believed necessary to be discussed and settled with the brethren, their opinion differs from your own wishes, let all be referred to us, with the minutes of your proceedings attested, that all ambiguities may be removed, and what is pleasing to God decided…The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful: and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests. And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honorable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.
-Letter 14

There are a lot more we can go into but I don’t think it’s necessary. I hope the above suffices to show the context of St. Leo the Great’s understanding of the See of Rome.

God bless you, brother.

Can’t wait to see how he spins his way out of this one.

 

[jam070406]

In my observation, the Orthodox bishops are sometimes autonomous sometimes not (sometimes abide by the rulings of certain Holy Synods and Patriarchs they regard as superiors, other times they reject their former superiors and go their own way), and there’s nobody in charge or even capable of policing intercommunion among the Orthodox bishops. Thus, they frequently move in and out of communion with each other.

My observations refer specifically to Eastern Orthodoxy, because I am less familiar with Oriental Orthodoxy.

I will give a few examples of EO Bishops moving in and out of communion with each other:

1. The Old Believer schism within the Russian EOC.

Certain bishops and priests in the 17th century rejected the liturgical reforms promulgated by the Patriarch of Moscow and the Tzar, and broke communion with them. Later on the Old Believers had many more schisms among each other, and as a result numerous schismatic Old Believer Churches formed. Some of these do have bishops and priests with a valid apostolic succession (however others rejected priesthood altogether), but they are not in communion with the MP (Moscow Patriarch).

1. The New Calendar - Florinist (Old Calendar) - Matthewite (Old Calendar) schism within the Greek EOC.

The short story of this is that the bishop of Florin city regarded the New Calendarists (the EP of Constantinople and Greek bishops who adopted the New Calendar around 1922) as potential heretics, and broke communion with them. Bishop Matthew, on the other hand, regarded both the New Calendarists as actual heretics (as opposed to potential heretics), and the Florinists as heretics as well, and broke communion with both of these groups. Thus, the Greek EOC schismed into 3 fractions, each one out of communion with each other: namely the “New Calendarists”, the Florinists, and the Matthewites. All three Churches in schism have valid apostolic succession, but they are out of communion with each other.

1. The New Calendar - Old Calendar schism within the Romanian, Bulgarian, and other EO Churches.

The Old Calendar Romanian EOC is in communion with the other Old Calendar (Greek, Bulgarian, Serb, Russian) EOC, but not with the New Calendar Romanian EOC. Same thing with the Bulgarians. We have valid bishops with apostolic succession at both sides (OC and NC side), but they are out of communion with each other.

1. The Moscow Patriarch breaking communion with the EP of Constantinople.

This happened in the mid-1990s, over a dispute regarding the Estonian EOC. They were out of communion with each other and the Moscow Patriarch stopped remembering the EP in the Diptychs. Later on, they mended their relations and came back into communion with each other.

1. ROCOR breaking communion with the Moscow Patriarch.

ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) believed that the MP has fallen into apostasy in 1927, and broke communion with the MP. They recently mended their relations and re-established communion in 2006.

1. ROCOR out of communion with the Greek, Antiochian, Romanian EOC, in the USA.

ROCOR, being an Old Calendar Church, regarded all mainline New Calendar EOC (such as Greek, Antiochian etc) as heretics, and instructed its faithful not to attend and not to commune in the New Calendar Churches, except in grave necessity where an Old Calendar priest was not available.

1. The Basilian Fathers (EO Bishops and priests with a Russian heritage) establishing full communion with the Catholic Church, and losing communion with mainline EOC such as the Greek and Antiochian.

The Holy Synod of the Basilian Fathers decided to re-establish full communion with Rome and with the Catholic Churches. But the Greek and Antiochian EOC are not happy with this, and I’m sure the reunited MP-ROCOR Russian EOC is even less happier.

1. Various Ukrainian EOC out of communion with each other (and with Moscow).

There was a schism within the Ukrainian EOC after the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. There’s a Ukrainian EOC headed by a Metropolitan, loyal to the Moscow Patriarch. And there’s another Ukrainian EOC with its own Patriarch, out of communion with the other Ukrainian EOC, and also out of communion with Moscow. Moscow does not recognize the legitimacy of this Kiew Patriarch, but the EP of Constantinople does.

1. A similar schism in Estonia.

There’s a Moscow-independent Estonian EOC recognized by the EP, however this is not recognized and it’s out of communion with the MP. And there’s of course another Estonian EOC loyal to Moscow, out of communion with the Moscow-independent faction.

1. The situation of OCA.

The Orthodox Church of America is recognized by Moscow, but not by the EP. I don’t know whether the EP is in communion or out of communion with the OCA.

1. The situation of the Japanese EOC.

There’s a certain Japanese EOC that claims independence from the EP and is recognized by the MP, however the EP does not recognize the Japanese EOC’s claim to independence. I don’t know whether the Japanese EOC and the EP are in communion or, in view of their dispute with each other, are they out of communion with each other.

---

There was a certain Catholic Cardinal responsible for inter-Church relations (maybe Cardinal Kasper but not sure of his name) who said, “we are increasingly aware that the EO Churches do not speak with one unified voice”. That makes it difficult for us Catholics to have a dialogue with them. But I guess a certain fragmentation, similar to that seen with Protestant denominations, is inevitable with the Eastern Orthodox Churches as a consequence of them having rejected the Pope as source of unity.

You could also include Macedonia, which some EO won’t recognize.

 

[rinnie]

My point being, from what principle do the Orthodox bishops claim their authority. I assume they do claim authority over the priests. If one has rejected the pope as bishop of bishops, then by what authority do the Orthodox bishops still claim authority over those under them? Does not the principle of a heirarchy fall apart under such thinking? Either the heirarchy is a heirarchy or it isn’t. And don’t give the line that “Jesus is the head of the Church”…that is true but the Orthodox hold that He hasinstituted visible leadership in the clergy. If this is so then why should there not be a visible head(the Pope) to lead in the name of the invisible head(Jesus)? Where do the Orthodox bishops claim their right to rule from if they reject the Pope ruling over them? Does not such a view make war on the concept of Church heirarchy itself? Or are the bishops autonomous? Who polices order and inter-communion among the Orthodox Churches?

Because this is just my opinion now. But from my understanding even though they do not agree on disciplines they still have the power of the Holy Spirit through Apostolic Succession.

 

[Hail_Linus]

My point being, from what principle do the Orthodox bishops claim their authority. I assume they do claim authority over the priests. If one has rejected the pope as bishop of bishops, then by what authority do the Orthodox bishops still claim authority over those under them? Does not the principle of a heirarchy fall apart under such thinking? Either the heirarchy is a heirarchy or it isn’t. And don’t give the line that “Jesus is the head of the Church”…that is true but the Orthodox hold that He hasinstituted visible leadership in the clergy. If this is so then why should there not be a visible head(the Pope) to lead in the name of the invisible head(Jesus)? Where do the Orthodox bishops claim their right to rule from if they reject the Pope ruling over them? Does not such a view make war on the concept of Church heirarchy itself? Or are the bishops autonomous? Who polices order and inter-communion among the Orthodox Churches?

This is a very interesting point. It made me wonder how the Eastern Orthodox view the authority of their Patriarchs over the other Bishops. Catholic Bishops (both the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rites) are expected to be very obedient to their Patriarch (which in the Latin Rite happens to be the Pope). But there seems to be a lack of consensus among the Eastern Orthodox as to what is the authority of their respective Patriarchs over the other Bishops. It seems the Eastern Orthodox Bishops seem to consider their own Patriarchs as “First Among Equals” in the same way they regard the Pope as “First Among Equals”. If this is true then the Eastern Orthodox do not really have a Hierarchy in their Churches. I must admit I know little of the authority of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs over the other Bishops. Could any EO educate me on this issue?

 

[Mickey]

Can’t wait to see how he spins his way out of this one.

Spin? There is no need to spin anything. St Leo the Great speaks of St Peter to convey unity of faith. After all, St Peter founded the See of Antioch first. All bishops speak through St Peter. All bishops speak through all the Apostles who derive their authority from Christ Himself. St Leo the Great’s writings are not proof of some type of doctrine of supremacy and/or infallibility.

Often cited as a proof of Papal Supremacy is the Tome of Leo a letter sent by Pope Leo to the Second Ecumenical Council. Part of it seems to some to suggest that Leo speaks with the authority of Peter.

“After reading of the forgoing epistle (Pope Leo’s), the most reverend bishops cried out: “This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril.

Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.”

However it is not just Leo’s teaching that is the teaching of the Apostle, but Cyril’s teaching as well. Both teach as Peter.

At the Third Ecumenical Council Pope Celestine and Cyril were compared to Paul!

“And all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out. This is a just judgment. To Cœlestine, a new Paul! To Cyril a new Paul! To Cœlestine the guardian of the faith! To Cœlestine of one mind with the synod! To Cœlestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Cœlestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!”

In that context then the approval of the Tome is simply to state a unity of faith, not only of the Pope but other churchmen as well. Leo and Cyril teach as Peter. Celestine and Cyril teach as Paul.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Roman_Pontiff

 

[jam070406]

Spin? There is no need to spin anything. St Leo the Great speaks of St Peter to convey unity of faith. After all, St Peter founded the See of Antioch first. All bishops speak through St Peter. All bishops speak through all the Apostles who derive their authority from Christ Himself. St Leo the Great’s writings are not proof of some type of doctrine of supremacy and/or infallibility.

Often cited as a proof of Papal Supremacy is the Tome of Leo a letter sent by Pope Leo to the Second Ecumenical Council. Part of it seems to some to suggest that Leo speaks with the authority of Peter.

“After reading of the forgoing epistle (Pope Leo’s), the most reverend bishops cried out: “This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril.

Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.”

However it is not just Leo’s teaching that is the teaching of the Apostle, but Cyril’s teaching as well. Both teach as Peter.

At the Third Ecumenical Council Pope Celestine and Cyril were compared to Paul!

“And all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out. This is a just judgment. To Cœlestine, a new Paul! To Cyril a new Paul! To Cœlestine the guardian of the faith! To Cœlestine of one mind with the synod! To Cœlestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Cœlestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!”

In that context then the approval of the Tome is simply to state a unity of faith, not only of the Pope but other churchmen as well. Leo and Cyril teach as Peter. Celestine and Cyril teach as Paul.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Roman_Pontiff

Ok. This really didn’t address Leo’s quotes in post #6 though.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So what the point of New Rome (Constantinople) and Third Rome (claimed by Russia) if its just honorific?

 

[lyrikal]

Spin? There is no need to spin anything. St Leo the Great speaks of St Peter to convey unity of faith. After all, St Peter founded the See of Antioch first. All bishops speak through St Peter. All bishops speak through all the Apostles who derive their authority from Christ Himself. St Leo the Great’s writings are not proof of some type of doctrine of supremacy and/or infallibility.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Roman_Pontiff

Your post does not deal with the quotes from Pope Leo. Assuming my post does not suffice that Leo believed in the primacy of Peter, here is another one:

( Sermon III )

1. Peter, persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church which he accepted. For he was ordained before the rest in such a manner that as he was called the Rock, as he was declared the foundation, as he was constituted doorkeeper of the kingdom of Heaven, as he was appointed judge to bind and loose, whose judgments will retain their validity in Heaven, by all these mystical titles we might perceive the nature of his relationship to Christ.

And today he still more fully and effectually performs the office entrusted to him and carries out every part of his duty and his charge in Him and with Him by whom he was glorified. So if any act or decree of ours is righteous, if we obtain anything by our daily supplications from God’s mercy, it is his work and his merits, whose power lives in his see and whose authority is so high. For, dearly beloved, his confession won this reward, his confession inspired by God the Father in the apostle’s heart, which transcended all the uncertainty of human judgment and was endowed with the firmness of a rock that no assault could shake. Throughout the Church Peter still says daily: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” and every tongue which confesses the Lord is inspired by the leadership of his voice…

1. And so, dearly beloved, with reasonable obedience, we celebrate today’s festival in such a way that in my humble person he may be recognized and honored, on whom rests the care of all the shepherds, as well as the charge of the sheep commended to him. His dignity is not diminished by even so unworthy an heir. Hence the presence of my venerable brethren and fellow priests, as much desired and valued by me, will be still more sacred and precious if they will transfer the chief honor of this service, in which they have deigned to take part, to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see but also the primate of all bishops. When therefore we utter our exhortations in your ears, holy brethren, believe that he is speaking whose representative we are, because it is his warning that we give and nothing but his teaching that we preach

-http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/leo.htm

And if we’re going to be quoting Wikipedia articles, how about this one?:

"Dispute with Dioscorus of Alexandria

In 445, Leo disputed with Pope Dioscorus, St. Cyril’s successor as Pope of Alexandria, insisting that the ecclesiastical practice of his see should follow that of Rome on the basis that Mark the Evangelist, the disciple of Saint Peter and founder of the Alexandrian Church, could have had no other tradition than that of the prince of the apostles. This, of course, was not the position of the Copts, who saw the ancient patriarchates as equals."

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_the_Great#cite_note-Acts-2

Or how about this?:

In the early years of his papacy, Pope Leo disputed the authentic leadership of the Church with Pope Dioscorus, Pope of Alexandria, the metropolitan of Thessalonica, and the Gallica Church, saying that the Church must be lead by the successor of Peter: "The care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head."

-ACTA SANCTORVM: Pope Saint Leo the Great

God bless you, Mickey.