Orthodox view of the Pope

[Monica4316]

I am trying to understand, do the Orthodox believe that the Pope had some sort of special jurisdiction during the Ecumenical Councils of the Early Church? (for example, even something like being the one who gives the last word in difficult questions or disputes). They agree the Pope is the “first among equals”, yet what does this mean to them? I understand the Catholic Church does teach also about infallibility, the Pope being an integral part of the unity of the Church, and also having universal jurisdiction. Thank you

 

[PluniaZ]

The entire church agreed to papal supremacy with the Formula of Hormisdas in 519 AD:

“Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.”

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/122063/The%20Formula%20of%20Pope%20St%20Hormisd

The phrase “first among equals” does not appear in any writing in the first millennium in reference to the Pope. It’s something Eastern Orthodox apologists made up in the second millennium.

 

[MartinJordan]

Weren’t there Greek Popes? Called the Byzantine Papacy?

MJ

 

[twf]

The entire church agreed to papal supremacy with the Formula of Hormisdas in 519 AD:

“Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.”

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/122063/The%20Formula%20of%20Pope%20St%20Hormisd

The phrase “first among equals” does not appear in any writing in the first millennium in reference to the Pope. It’s something Eastern Orthodox apologists made up in the second millennium.

The early Church acknowledged the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The term “supremacy” is quite loaded and probably best avoided in ecumenical contexts. The question then comes down to defining what exactly that primacy entailed.

 

[Augustine3]

In the past biblical accounts, name changes indicate a change of office/destiny e.g. Abram to Abraham etc.

Would do the Orthodox make of the name change of the first pope from Simon to Peter?

 

[Monica4316]

I’m sorry I wasn’t really clear! I didn’t mean what the early Church thought from our perspective (although there was good information in those replies, thank you) - I meant what do Orthodox today think the early Church thought? I hope that makes sense! I’m asking “what did the early Church say” not according to the Catholic Church but according to the Orthodox today. (I want to compare them)

For myself, I believe the Catholic interpretation of this is the true and historical one… But I want to see how the Orthodox interpretation of history is in comparison

 

[PluniaZ]

I’m sorry I wasn’t really clear! I didn’t mean what the early Church thought from our perspective (although there was good information in those replies, thank you) - I meant what do Orthodox today think the early Church thought? I hope that makes sense! I’m asking “what did the early Church say” not according to the Catholic Church but according to the Orthodox today. (I want to compare them)

For myself, I believe the Catholic interpretation of this is the true and historical one… But I want to see how the Orthodox interpretation of history is in comparison

Isn’t that a subjectivist point of view? It’s an objective fact as to what the early church actually said. And the early church did in fact affirm that the Pope is supreme.

See these links:

reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/5ry0pk/rome_has_always_been_the_head_of_all_churches/

reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/6nu9nc/apologetics_1st_millennium_opposition_to_the_pope/

 

[pablope]

I’m sorry I wasn’t really clear! I didn’t mean what the early Church thought from our perspective (although there was good information in those replies, thank you) - I meant what do Orthodox today think the early Church thought? I hope that makes sense! I’m asking “what did the early Church say” not according to the Catholic Church but according to the Orthodox today. (I want to compare them)

For myself, I believe the Catholic interpretation of this is the true and historical one… But I want to see how the Orthodox interpretation of history is in comparison

I think this article is what you are looking for:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1355

Byzantium and the Roman Primacy

by Francis Dvornik

DESCRIPTION

An examination of the position which the Byzantine Church took on the Primacy of Peter from earliest times on up to the period when the estrangement between East and West occured.

LARGER WORK

The American Ecclesiastical Review

PAGES

289-312

PUBLISHER & DATE

The Catholic University of America Press, May 1961

The most important and the most controversial point in all endeavors for rapprochement of other Churches with the Roman Catholic Church is undoubtedly the question of the Roman Primacy in Christianity. The denial of this prerogative to the Bishop of Rome by the Orthodox is, perhaps, the only serious obstacle on the way to reunion of the Eastern Churches with the Roman Church. The many polemic writings issued in the East and in the West from the eleventh century, denying or defending the primary position of the Roman Bishop, have, so far, failed to produce the desired effect on either side. Mutual distrust caused mostly by political divisions and the different development of the Church’s organization in East and West, manifested particularly from the eleventh century on, have often embittered the minds of the controversialists and prevented the faithful on both sides from considering the problem without prejudice.

Instead of repeating all the known arguments pro and contra, let us try the historical method and examine the position which the Byzantine Church took on this problem from earliest times on up to the period when the estrangement between the Eastern and Western parts of mediaeval Christianity became apparent and began to envenom the atmosphere in which the Churches had to live.

 

[PluniaZ]

I think this article is what you are looking for:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1355

Byzantium and the Roman Primacy

by Francis Dvornik

DESCRIPTION

An examination of the position which the Byzantine Church took on the Primacy of Peter from earliest times on up to the period when the estrangement between East and West occured.

I think the article is too soft in its defense of papal supremacy prior to the Council of Chalcedon. In particular:

1. It ignores the 1st century Epistle of Clement, which asserts Roman supremacy over the church of Corinth.
2. It ignores Pope Victor I’s victory over Quartodecimanism in Ephesus (modern day Turkey) in the 2nd century.
3. It ignores Pope Stephen I’s assertion of papal supremacy as far away as Caesarea in Cappadocia in the 3rd century.
4. It ignores that even Edessa traces its apostolic succession to Pope Zephyrinus of Rome.
5. It falsely states that the Council of Nicaea in 325 limited Rome’s jurisdiction to Italy. In fact, the Council of Nicaea places no jurisdictional limits at all on Rome, in contrast to Alexandria and Antioch, the only other cities it lists.
6. It falsely claims that Alexandria and Antioch accepted Constantinople’s usurpation of power at the Council of Constantinople in 381. In fact, Alexandria never acknowledged this canon prior to the Council of Chalcedon, and the Patriarch of Antioch died during the council.
7. It dares to attack Saint Cyril of Alexandria for his triumph over the Nestorian heresy, and even tries to exculpate Nestorius from the charge of heresy - even though Nestorius was condemned by ecumenical council.
8. It falsely claims Canon 28 of Chalcedon was not accepted prior to the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. In fact, Canon 28 was accepted at the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 869.

Otherwise it has good stuff from the Justinian to Photius period.

 

[steve_b]

I’m sorry I wasn’t really clear! I didn’t mean what the early Church thought from our perspective (although there was good information in those replies, thank you) - I meant what do Orthodox today think the early Church thought? I hope that makes sense! I’m asking “what did the early Church say” not according to the Catholic Church but according to the Orthodox today. (I want to compare them)

For myself, I believe the Catholic interpretation of this is the true and historical one… But I want to see how the Orthodox interpretation of history is in comparison

Here is a Q/A from a retired Melkite Bishop on this subject.

He answers 5 questions
holysynergy.wordpress.com/2017/01/28/most-rev-john-adel-elya-former-eparch-of-the-melkite-greek-catholic-church-of-newton-hammers-false-ecumenism/

 

[Monica4316]

Isn’t that a subjectivist point of view? It’s an objective fact as to what the early church actually said. And the early church did in fact affirm that the Pope is supreme.

See these links:

reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/5ry0pk/rome_has_always_been_the_head_of_all_churches/

reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/6nu9nc/apologetics_1st_millennium_opposition_to_the_pope/

It is an objective fact… I don’t support subjectivism. I’m just trying to understand what the Orthodox believe so that I can dialogue with them

 

[pacloc]

I am trying to understand, do the Orthodox believe that the Pope had some sort of special jurisdiction during the Ecumenical Councils of the Early Church? (for example, even something like being the one who gives the last word in difficult questions or disputes). They agree the Pope is the “first among equals”, yet what does this mean to them? I understand the Catholic Church does teach also about infallibility, the Pope being an integral part of the unity of the Church, and also having universal jurisdiction. Thank you

I am no expert in councils, but from what I’ve read, the early councils were started by the emperors and that the emperors and other lead bishops headed the councils, not the pope of Rome. So the new idea that the pope of Rome is some kind of super bishop is very problematic with the Orthodox Church, and helps prove that the Church’s concerns about the power hungering of the pope of Rome in the years leading up to the schism were not unfounded. I personally see the innovations of infallibility and powers to govern each and every other bishop by force in the Latin Church as a “bad fruit” that clearly shows that the Church was preserved in the East and the governance in the West has led to its falling away from the Church.

As for the position of the pope of Rome when they were in the Church, he was viewed very highly and his words and help were sought for above all else if possible. But language and distance prevented that in many cases, and other lead Bishops also were consulted. Pope Gregory the Great clearly states that there is no Bishop of Bishops when he mistakenly thought that the Bishop of Constantinople was trying to apply this title to himself out of some power trip.

Due to this sad past of the falling away of the church of Rome, the Church seems hesitant to put so must trust in any one Bishop today. It also seems less important to do so, since the Church has spread to most of the world and Her teachings have been clearly explained against heresies of older pagan origin.

 

[gazelam]

1. It ignores the 1st century Epistle of Clement, which asserts Roman supremacy over the church of Corinth.

Robert Eno has the following observations regarding whether Roman supremacy is demonstrated by this epistle…

And so Catholic scholars have frequently claimed for this letter the honor of being the first exercise of Roman primacy. Opponents have seen it example of fraternal correction such as might be carried on between two equal local churches at that time. Was one local church at this time considered superior to other local churches? If the Roman self-consciousness of its own superior position was a fact at that time, why does this exercise of such authority appear to be so isolated? Were there more such interventions but the records are lost?
Or does it all come down to opinions about the tone of the letter? Is it a tone of command? of superiority? How is one to measure such things? Exhortation to obedience and warnings are found at the end of the letter. The Corinthian’s are to be obedient to God; the letter is referred to as symboule, “counsel” (58). On the other hand, if the “tone” is claimed to be simply one of fraternal correction, are there other such letters? The answer is yes. Eusebius speaks of Bishop Dionysius of Corinth who, apparently unsolicited, wrote letters of advice and exhortation to many churches such as the Athenians and Nicomedians (H. E. IV .23). Thus the question of how to evaluate the Roman intervention is less simple that it may appear, especially recalling the natural prestige of the Roman community suggested earlier. (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, p. 37)

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’m just trying to understand what the Orthodox believe so that I can dialogue with them

In what sense are you attempting to engage in dialogue with the Orthodox?

In any event, a good place for you to begin to understand where the matter lies presently for the topic about which you inquire is with “Synodality and Primacy during the first Millennium: Towards a common understanding in service to the Unity of the Church” which was issued by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Further information from PCPCU: en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/09/23/catholics,_orthodox_sign_new_document_on_primacy,_synodality/1260292

 

[PluniaZ]

Robert Eno has the following observations regarding whether Roman supremacy is demonstrated by this epistle…

And so Catholic scholars have frequently claimed for this letter the honor of being the first exercise of Roman primacy. Opponents have seen it example of fraternal correction such as might be carried on between two equal local churches at that time. Was one local church at this time considered superior to other local churches? If the Roman self-consciousness of its own superior position was a fact at that time, why does this exercise of such authority appear to be so isolated? Were there more such interventions but the records are lost?
Or does it all come down to opinions about the tone of the letter? Is it a tone of command? of superiority? How is one to measure such things? Exhortation to obedience and warnings are found at the end of the letter. The Corinthian’s are to be obedient to God; the letter is referred to as symboule, “counsel” (58). On the other hand, if the “tone” is claimed to be simply one of fraternal correction, are there other such letters? The answer is yes. Eusebius speaks of Bishop Dionysius of Corinth who, apparently unsolicited, wrote letters of advice and exhortation to many churches such as the Athenians and Nicomedians (H. E. IV .23). Thus the question of how to evaluate the Roman intervention is less simple that it may appear, especially recalling the natural prestige of the Roman community suggested earlier. (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, p. 37)

You can quibble all you want, but when you look at all the evidence from the first millennium - from the Epistle of Clement to Pope Victor I and Pope Stephen I threatening to excommunicate churches Asia and Cappadocia to Pope Dionysius I deposing the Patriarch of Antioch - the picture is unmistakable that the Pope claimed supremacy in the ante-Nicene period. After Nicaea, the picture gets even clearer.

 

[PluniaZ]

I am no expert in councils, but from what I’ve read, the early councils were started by the emperors and that the emperors and other lead bishops headed the councils, not the pope of Rome. So the new idea that the pope of Rome is some kind of super bishop is very problematic with the Orthodox Church, and helps prove that the Church’s concerns about the power hungering of the pope of Rome in the years leading up to the schism were not unfounded. I personally see the innovations of infallibility and powers to govern each and every other bishop by force in the Latin Church as a “bad fruit” that clearly shows that the Church was preserved in the East and the governance in the West has led to its falling away from the Church.

As for the position of the pope of Rome when they were in the Church, he was viewed very highly and his words and help were sought for above all else if possible. But language and distance prevented that in many cases, and other lead Bishops also were consulted. Pope Gregory the Great clearly states that there is no Bishop of Bishops when he mistakenly thought that the Bishop of Constantinople was trying to apply this title to himself out of some power trip.

Due to this sad past of the falling away of the church of Rome, the Church seems hesitant to put so must trust in any one Bishop today. It also seems less important to do so, since the Church has spread to most of the world and Her teachings have been clearly explained against heresies of older pagan origin.

The Pope’s legates presided over all the 1st millennium councils.

But long before the councils, the Pope asserted his authority over the entire church, as I’ve previously shown. And this authority was acknowledged by Saint Irenaeus of Lyons and Saint Cyprian of Carthage, long before the first ecumenical council. And the Council of Nicaea recognized Rome’s authority, granting Alexandria and Antioch authority over Egypt and Syria based on the authority that Rome had without geographical limit.

When the entire worldwide Church faced crisis in the 5th and 6th centuries over monophysitism, it was the Church of Rome that alone stood for orthodoxy, and the entire Church submitted to its authority with the Formula of Hormisdas in 519.

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/122063/The%20Formula%20of%20Pope%20St%20Hormisd

 

[gazelam]

You can quibble all you want, but when you look at all the evidence from the first millennium - from the Epistle of Clement to Pope Victor I and Pope Stephen I threatening to excommunicate churches Asia and Cappadocia to Pope Dionysius I deposing the Patriarch of Antioch - the picture is unmistakable that the Pope claimed supremacy in the ante-Nicene period. After Nicaea, the picture gets even clearer.

OK. Let’s look at some evidence from the first and second centuries. Ignatius of Antioch wrote seven letters that are known. Six of them admonish the recipients to follow the bishop. But, curiously the seventh - to the Romans - does not. Of this anomoly, Robert Eno has this to say…

Throughout these six letters, he [Ignatius] broadcasts his theological views of the central importance of the bishop. But he also wrote one letter ahead, to a place which he has never visited personally but where he was to end his life as a martyr - Rome. His purpose here was quite different–to ask the Roman Christians not to interfere on his behalf to try to stop his trial and suffering. The letter is interesting because, unlike all the other letters, it contains no ecclesiological doctrine about the importance of the bishop. Of course, as he himself says, he did not presume to give the Roman Christians instructions as the Apostles had. Nevertheless it is strange that while other letters all make frequent mention of the bishop of the community being addressed, he does not greet a bishop in Rome nor does he ever mention such a person in this letter. One might object that since Ignatius had never been in Rome, he did not know the bishop’s name. He could have spoken to or of a bishop even if he had not known his name. More importantly, if one should presume from his other letters that a strong individual bishop-leader existed everywhere in the Church of his time, then he would have known that there was such a leader in the Roman community. But we have only silence, which leads to many to conclude that Ignatius did not address such a person because the Roman community of the time had no such leader. (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, pp 26, 27)

Also, in the footnotes Eno refers the to the following study of Peter Lampe for more information: Die stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe, Bd. 18 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987), especially pp. 334-45.