What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[ConstantineTG]

Well we sorta addressed this already, also here.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&sqi=2&ved=0CGEQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aboutcatholics.com%2Fworship%2Fproof_reason_papal_office%2F&ei=vyMRUJ-GBeyN6QG40ICAAw&usg=AFQjCNGOqwPKqGZFhROO3oSNGdQXw3KMSg&sig2=CkZFJ0e-VLlvN88xKuYfxA

But again, there is no evidence to link the Bishop of Rome to Peter’s own personal authority. For one thing, the Apostles themselves have unique power over the entire Church. If Peter’s authority is passed on, why not the other Apostles? Why not St. Paul’s? And again we keep quoting Scripture to prove this, why is it not spelled out plainly in Scripture given that the role of the Pope does seem pretty important. I mean, it’s so important that the Catholic Church says if I don’t agree with her regarding the authority of the Pope, I am going to hell.

 

[Bballer32]

And again we keep quoting Scripture to prove this, why is it not spelled out plainly in Scripture given that the role of the Pope does seem pretty important. I mean, it’s so important that the Catholic Church says if I don’t agree with her regarding the authority of the Pope, I am going to hell.

Is there really anything spelled out completely in the bible? The Catholic Church would exist today even without the bible. So, quoting scripture is to help support the Tradition of the Church passed down since Pentacost. It is also very easy to see that the Church Fathers and Apostles all respected the Authority of the Pope. If they had a problem with it, there would be more writings about it and there probably wouldn’t be such a thing as Church Fathers. There needs to be a Church that the Church Fathers respect in order to be called Church Fathers.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is there really anything spelled out completely in the bible?

Plenty are.

The Catholic Church would exist today even without the bible. So, quoting scripture is to help support the Tradition of the Church passed down since Pentacost.

Ah, the classical “anti-Sola Scriptura” quip. If the Bible is so unreliable, why have it at all then? You seem to be forgetting that the Catholic Church herself teaches that Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium should go together. One is not more authoritative than the other and they each should support each other. Why do you think people came up with Biblical passages to support the claim to Papal Supremacy in the first place?

It is also very easy to see that the Church Fathers and Apostles all respected the Authority of the Pope.

He is a bishop. I don’t see why they would not respect a bishop. And again, there is no question about the special place of St. Peter and the Church of Rome. The fact is, we have no evidence to connect the two.

If they had a problem with it, there would be more writings about it and there probably wouldn’t be such a thing as Church Fathers. There needs to be a Church that the Church Fathers respect in order to be called Church Fathers.

Funny you said about “if they had a problem with it,” because don’t you think it is odd that when the Great Schism finally happened and the Pope was asserting his supremacy over the whole Church that no one took his side among the Patriarchs?

 

[Bballer32]

Funny you said about “if they had a problem with it,” because don’t you think it is odd that when the Great Schism finally happened and the Pope was asserting his supremacy over the whole Church that no one took his side among the Patriarchs?

Then explain to me why the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches left the Orthodox to restore communion with Rome?

 

[Hesychios]

Then explain to me why the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches left the Orthodox to restore communion with Rome?

Do you actually know anything at all about the circumstances?

The reasons are as varied as 22 faces.

 

[GaryTaylor]

But again, there is no evidence to link the Bishop of Rome to Peter’s own personal authority.

I disagree

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we shall put to confusion all those who… assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the Faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should convene with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, because the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere” St Irenaues

For one thing, the Apostles themselves have unique power over the entire Church…

And St Peter was their spokesman.

If Peter’s authority is passed on, why not the other Apostles? Why not St. Paul’s? .

St Paul perished in Rome and as has always been connected and distiguished as such to this day. And His feelings on this matter are also Biblical.

And again we keep quoting Scripture to prove this, why is it not spelled out plainly in Scripture given that the role of the Pope does seem pretty important. .

You mean clearly “enough” St Peter is mentioned how many times compared to the other beloved Apostles? How many times does Jesus Christ mention Church [Once] and who does He build this Church upon?

I mean, it’s so important that the Catholic Church says if I don’t agree with her regarding the authority of the Pope, I am going to hell.

We know where the Church is we do not not know where it is not. All are called to Communion and we pray for those Souls daily.

 

[brumano]

He is a bishop. I don’t see why they would not respect a bishop. And again, there is no question about the special place of St. Peter and the Church of Rome. The fact is, we have no evidence to connect the two.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Then explain to me why the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches left the Orthodox to restore communion with Rome?

Do you actually know anything at all about the circumstances?

The reasons are as varied as 22 faces.

So very true. Also, to imply that it was a rejection of Orthodoxy is both unfounded and unfair to the Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[josie_L]

The very term ‘ecumenical’ used to describe the ecumenical councils derives from the Greek term oikoumene, which at some point meant ‘the known world’. As the empire shrank, however, its meaning shifted to meaning the ‘of the empire’ (this semantic shift never happened in the West, since Greek was not actively spoken there). This explains pope Gregory’s controversy with John the Faster over the title Ecumenical Patriarch. Pope Gregory understood Ecumenical Patriarch to mean universal patriarch, which he rightfully recognized would destroy the structure of the Church by making all other bishops the vicar of one bishop, while the East would have understood Ecumenical Patriarch to mean something more along the lines of ‘Patriarch of the Imperial City’.

In order to clarify this further, Pope St. Gregory never denied that he had universal jurisdiction, i.e., but he did deny as you said the rule of one bishop (unus) which would invalidate the authority of his brother bishops, please let me quote from an earlier post of mine:

QUESTION: Is it true that Pope Gregory I denied that the pope is the “universal bishop” and taught that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over any other bishop?

ANSWER: No. Gregory the Great (540 - 604), saint, pope, and doctor of the Church, never taught any such thing. He would have denied that the title “universal bishop” could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other “bishops” were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their own. Such a distorted version of the biblical model of bishops is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

But that isn’t to say that the title didn’t – and doesn’t – have a proper sense of which Gregory approved. If meant in the sense that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all the bishops, the title is correct. If it means he is the only bishop and all the other “bishops” are not really successors to the apostles, it’s false.

Now here are the words of St. Gregory the Great:

[Pope Gregory also appealed to the Emperor Maurice – Epp v:37]

“It is clear to every one who knows the Gospel that the CARE of the WHOLE CHURCH has been committed to the blessed PETER, CHIEF of the Apostles. For him it is said: [quotes from John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32; and Matt 16:18-19]
. Behold, he receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to him is given the power of binding and loosing; to him the CARE and PRIMACY of the WHOLE CHURCH is committed; and yet he is never called the Universal Apostle. But that most holy man, my fellow-bishop John, wishes to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim, O tempora! O mores!”

“Most Religious Lord, am I defending my own cause, am I vindicating a wrong done to myself alone? NO; it is the cause of Almighty God, the cause of the UNIVERSAL CHURCH. We know of a truth that many bishops of the Church of Constantinople have fallen into the whirlpool of heresy, and have become not only heretics, but heresiarchs.” [Gregory quotes as instances Nestorius and Macedonius]

“If, then, any bishop of that Church assumes the title Universal, the Universal Church must be overthrown with the fall of the Universal Bishop. God forbid! Far from all Christian hearts be that blasphemous name, by which one bishop madly arrogates all honour to himself, taking it away from the rest of his brethren!”

These are my words from this same post:

See how St. Gregory the Great delineates between St. Peter’s care over all the churches, i.e., universal jurisdiction, but is not called a Universal apostle, i.e., the only apostle arrogating all honour to himself. Thus St. Gregory as the successor to St. Peter is not repudiating his own primacy/universal jurisdiction (and again reading the evidence I provided in my posts will show you this) but rather repudiating the idea of “universal”, i.e, “unus” as in one bishop/patriarch.

You can read the whole article from whence I accessed these quotes (of Pope St. Gregory the Great) at: philvaz.com/apologetics/num7.htm

p.s. For all Catholics interested in good Catholic Apologetics website, please visit these cites:

isidore-of-seville.com/or…olicism/5.html

pblosser.blogspot.com/

credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/

catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/

socrates58.blogspot.com/

 

[josie_L]

If you wish to dispel my scepticism, then you can do so by giving an historical context

Now when a council convened by the Emperor finished, its canons immediately went into effect as imperial law. This is why Leo, Archbishop of Rome, could do nothing to overturn Second Ephesus, even though he considered it to be a robber synod, because until the death of Emperor Theodosius II, Second Ephesus was already being enforced by imperial sanction, with or without the approval of the bishop of Rome. Upon Theodosius’ death, his sister, Pulcheria and her political husband for convenience, Marcian, (Pulcheria had taken a vow of chastity and never consummated her marriage) decided to overturn Theodosius’ decision in favor of holding yet another council in the East (over Pope Leo’s protestations that it should be held in the West).

The pope’s affirmation of the council was necessary (even if most Emperors were more interested in unification of the empire at the expense of orthodoxy), case in point, Pope Vigilius’s captivity by Pope Justinian in order to confirm the decrees of Constantinople II, i.e., you do not imprison a pope for 10 years without believing that said pope is crucial to the ratification of conciliar decisions. As before I would like to quote a previous post of mine concerning this:

It seems Emperor Justinian went to great lenghts to have Pope Vigilius confirm the unorthodoxy of the Three Chapters (and as such the people who wrote them: Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Ibas of Edessa), i.e., having him arrested while in the middle of mass, and then holding him in captivity (for 10 years). So has I said before the consent of Popes was necessary to give force to councils (ecumenical or otherwise). Justinian could accept no less considering that he himself realized this:

“Yielding honour to the Apostolic See, and to your Holiness, and honouring your Holiness, as one ought to honour a father . . . we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness. . . For we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all holy churches.” (Justinian, Epist. ad Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. i. tit. 1)

“Nor do we allow that any of these things, concerning ecclesiastical institution, should fail to be brought before his Holiness, as being the head of all the holy Priests of God, and because as often as heretics have arisen in these parts, have been repressed by the sentence and judgment of that Holy See.” (Justinian, Epist. ad Epiphan. Cod. Justinian, lib. i. tom. i. n. 7)

“Let your apostleship show, . . . that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Supreme Pastor, the salvation of all.” (Coll. Avell Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to the Pope)

That he used force (albeit Vigilius of his own free-will came to accept and confirm II Constantinople) is only evidence of his need to reconcile monophysites to the empire. Vigilius defied Justinian (after being arrested) as a matter of principle rather than opposition in condemning The Three Chapters, i.e., to protect Chalcedon and his role as head of the Church, i.e., the office of Peter.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6955441#post6955441

 

[RKO]

So, there were basically 5 churches. Well, I guess there was “The Church in Antioch,” The Church in Rome," etc.
It seems like this is a discussion of collegiality. At what point does the Bishop of Rome go past " primacy," and have the authority to unlaterally decide something that must be accepted in every other church by every other Patriarch, without dissent?

It seems to me that there is an agreement that Rome was the leader, but is Rome the “monarch” of the Church? I guess that’s where the argument breaks down. That’s where east and west hasn’t agreed for 1000 years, and certainly won’t in the near future.
Seems a very great pity to me, but maybe it’s God’s plan…

 

[ByzCathCantor]

p.s. For all Catholics interested in good Catholic Apologetics website, please visit these cites:

IMHO at least one of these referenced blogs is extraordinarily polemic and should be avoided (ID withheld to protect the guilty). Some of the suggestions and conclusions are not only contrary to Catholic teaching, but also strongly infer that the Eastern Catholic Churches are heretical (perhaps withoout realizing it, but that’s part of the problem).

As with many blogs, we should be mindful that at the end of the day they reflect opinion. One can find just about any opinion one may be seeking on the good 'ole [mis]information highway …

 

[josie_L]

Anyway, the point is that by the time of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the constant process of reversals in imperial law had caused the fathers to look for a better indicator of whether a council should truly be regarded as ecumenical and worthy of being appended to imperial law. The solution which the Seventh Ecumenical Council came up with (and which it seems was never rejected by Rome), was that the council should be approved by all five Patriarchs. I find it unlikely that Patriarch Nicephorus would have been ignorant of this concept which had been drafted in a council just two decades earlier, and it is already plausible to interpret that statement in such a way. Or perhaps he recognizes a primacy along the lines of Apostolic Canon 34?

And that indicator was the apostolic see of Rome, hence the reason I cited (as one example) Pope Vigilius’s captivity by the Emperor Justinian. Moreover, the idea/speculation that all 5 patriarchs needed to affirm an ecumenical council (pentarchy theory) in order for its decrees to be accepted universally would make very little sense as per the history of the Church (how many heresiarchs were there who refused to confirm previous ecumenical councils?) This speculation/understanding (of all five patriarchs affirming an ecumenical council) was never perceived or part of how the church dealt with ecumenical councils (in the past), i.e., not part of tradition or custom, and I should believe that St.Nicephorus knew this, hence his comments pertaining to the see of Rome (and not the pentarchy). Anyways, St. Nicephorus was deposed of his position as patriarch during the iconoclastic controversy, and during which time St. Theodore of Studite (along with 4 other abbots) wrote to Pope Paschal I about the persecution of iconodules and the displacement of St. Nicephorus, here is what part of the letter said:

“Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ’s sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: ‘And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.’ Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)”

fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

In response Pope Paschal sent legates to Constantinople in response to the appeal of the abbots.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why did your church go from calling the successor of St. Peter, Holy Father, Supreme Pontiff, Vicar of Christ, Servant of Servants, Shepherd of Sheherds, to First Among Equals? That’s a very oxymoronish title that you whittled down to him, what’s this first business about then anyway, if you don’t really understand that there’s evidence connecting the two why do you call him first among anything, or even as an equal?

a. My Church (the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) calls him the same thing you Romans do
b. The title the Pope has today is not something that has been there from the beginning.
c. St. Peter was often ascribed the title Coryphaeus, which means “leader of the chorus”. Not that lengthy title you just posted which most of which has only been given recently.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then explain to me why the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches left the Orthodox to restore communion with Rome?

I would suggest you go and research each of those unions starting with the Union of Brest. I’m sure Catholic polemecists would love to say, “ah, these anti-Pope heathens have come to their senses and are returning to their rightful place under the Pope.” But it’s not cut and dry like that. In fact, some even wanted communion with Rome with the expectation that they would be in communion with both Rome and Constantinople. But anyway, read up. Wikipedia is a good starting point.

 

[josie_L]

IMHO at least one of these referenced blogs is extraordinarily polemic and should be avoided (ID withheld to protect the guilty). Some of the suggestions and conclusions are not only contrary to Catholic teaching, but also strongly infer that the Eastern Catholic Churches are heretical (perhaps withoout realizing it, but that’s part of the problem).

As with many blogs, we should be mindful that at the end of the day they reflect opinion. One can find just about any opinion one may be seeking on the good 'ole [mis]information highway …

I do not seek opinions so much as Catholic teachings (and the history of those teachings through the fathers) from these websites. I have not come across (although I have not read everything there is to read on these blogs) anything “extraodinarily polemic” (sounds downright violent) on these blogs.

 

[josie_L]

There are no “many chairs,” plural, but ONE chair of Peter, and in accordance with the Tradition handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers of the Church, that chair is the seat of every bishop. The normal example being the oft-used quote of St. Cyprian in reference to his own bishopric in the context of a local schism in the North African church:

That chair is the seat of every bishop (they have access to it) if they are in communion with the see of Rome, although it is the See of Rome which truly holds the office of St. Peter, i.e., with all the significance Christ gave it through Peter.

Then there’s the issue of why, if the chair of Peter is given to a single super-ordinary bishop and not to all bishops, was St. Peter’s [first and longest-held] office as Bishop of Antioch subordinate to his office in Rome? As in, why, by Roman logic, would the Successor of Peter the Patriarch of Antioch not be successor of Peter as the one Vicar of Christ, the Infallible Universal Pontiff and Head of all the Church on Earth, et al, instead of the Patriarch of Rome?

The reason being that St. Peter left Antioch for Rome, and as such before he died IN ROME, appointed his successor (he who would continue his office) IN ROME, not Antioch. I believe it was God who led St. Peter to Rome (and St. Paul too) because it was as you stated at the epicenter of the World.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The pope’s affirmation of the council was necessary (even if most Emperors were more interested in unification of the empire at the expense of orthodoxy), case in point, Pope Vigilius’s captivity by Pope Justinian in order to confirm the decrees of Constantinople II, i.e., you do not imprison a pope for 10 years without believing that said pope is crucial to the ratification of conciliar decisions. As before I would like to quote a previous post of mine concerning this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6955441#post6955441

Your timeline is wrong. Vigilius was held in captivity for around two years at the most after the Second Council of Constantinople, not for ten years, and he was even held in captivity for at least one year after he had already recanted of his earlier decisions and approved of the Council.

Vigilius’ goal was to secure military aid for the city of Rome. Justinian wished to condemn the three chapters, something which Vigilius agreed to do. However, when Justinian convened the Second Council of Constantinople some time in mid 553, Vigilius refused to participate, because Justinian in convening the council had breached an agreement between the two of them. Justinian proceeded to hold the council without Vigilius. Under pressure from the Council, Vigilius, with a small gathering of sixteen other bishops who supported his cause, drafted his document, the First Constitutum in which he defended the persons of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the writings of Theodoret and the Letter of Ibas, and forbade anybody from making a different judgment with the ‘authority of the Apostolic See’.

Upon receiving this *Constitutum *, Justinian presented to the Council several letters in which Vigilius had privately agreed to condemn the Three Chapters, causing Vigilius to appear duplicitous, sealing Vigilius’ fate. They struck him from the diptychs in the seventh session and in the eighth session made a judgment that the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Three Chapters should all be anathematized, along with those who defended them. Vigilius was then held in captivity (some sources like the ones used for the Catholic Encyclopedia Article on the Second Council of Constantinople seem to indicate that he was sent into exile). On the eighth day of December in the year 533 wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Constantinople, Eutychus, in which he withdrew his First Constitutum. He then wrote a Second Constitutum, some time in February of 554, in which he promulgated the decisions of the council in the West (several sees in the West immediately went into schism upon receiving this Second Constitutum, claiming that Vigilius and the East had abandoned the true faith of Chalcedon). Only in the year 555 (over one year after approving of the Council’s decisions) was Vigilius allowed to return to Rome (but he died on the way home).

If they imprisoned/exiled Vigilius because they needed his approval, as you claim, then why did he remain imprisoned for one year after approving of the Council’s decisions? Furthermore, if imprisoning Vigilius is proof that they needed his approval, does that mean that they needed the approval of Nestorius, who was similarly exiled? And why did the council feel free to contradict the pope, who had declared in his First Constitutum that any declaration contrary to his would be nullified by the authority of the Apostolic See? Your interpretation of the Second Council of Constantinople leaves a few questions unanswered.

 

[Cavaradossi]

And that indicator was the apostolic see of Rome, hence the reason I cited (as one example) Pope Vigilius’s captivity by the Emperor Justinian. Moreover, the idea/speculation that all 5 patriarchs needed to affirm an ecumenical council (pentarchy theory) in order for its decrees to be accepted universally would make very little sense as per the history of the Church (how many heresiarchs were there who refused to confirm previous ecumenical councils?) This speculation/understanding (of all five patriarchs affirming an ecumenical council) was never perceived or part of how the church dealt with ecumenical councils (in the past), i.e., not part of tradition or custom, and I should believe that St.Nicephorus knew this, hence his comments pertaining to the see of Rome (and not the pentarchy). Anyways, St. Nicephorus was deposed of his position as patriarch during the iconoclastic controversy, and during which time St. Theodore of Studite (along with 4 other abbots) wrote to Pope Paschal I about the persecution of iconodules and the displacement of St. Nicephorus, here is what part of the letter said:

fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

In response Pope Paschal sent legates to Constantinople in response to the appeal of the abbots.

So in other words, they were sucking up to the bishop of Rome to get him to send legates to Constantinople in order to investigate the situation in accordance with his established canonical and traditional prerogatives. So what?

 

[GaryTaylor]

So in other words, they were sucking up to the bishop of Rome to get him to send legates to Constantinople in order to investigate the situation in accordance with his established canonical and traditional prerogatives. So what?

I love dropping in here to see how this brotherly love is working out. I would pay to see this conversation in person.