What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[Cavaradossi]

The authority is on Peter’s chair, and whoever is chosen to sit on it.

Then the question is, is this property (of primacy) something ontologically unique to the See of Rome, or is it something which is inherent in the episcopacy?

 

[Marybeloved]

But how is Peter’s office (that of primacy) passed from pope to pope?

The office exists in the church and Peter’s successors who succeeded him in the episcopacy in Rome occupy it. I don’t know that passing on ‘from pope to pope’ accurately describes the succession of the papacy. The holy orders are passed on like that from bishop to bishop, to priest, to deacon through the laying of hands etc But the papacy is not a fourth hierarchy/class among the holy orders of the CC and I think that alot of confusion can stem from approaching it as if it were the class of holy orders above the bishops. The authority resides in the church, exercised by the person who occupies the office. When they die, the office is vacant but still exist.

 

[Marybeloved]

Then the question is, is this property (of primacy) something ontologically unique to the See of Rome, or is it something which is inherent in the episcopacy?

The See of Rome is where the first occupant left it, so yeah, it’s a Roman thing. That’s because it’s very much a Petrine thing as it was Peter’s office, built on his very person, so where he handed it over is very important.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The See of Rome is where the first occupant left it, so yeah, it’s a Roman thing. It’s also very much Peter thing as it was Peter’s office, built on his very person, so where he handed it over is very important.

How can a personal office be passed on to a place?

 

[Marybeloved]

How can a personal office be passed on to a place?

It was handed over to the episcopal occupants of a certain place, a certain line of succession, Roman. If it were handed over “to a place” then Italian presidents, kings jemperors, would occupy it. As it stands, they don’t. The office resides in the church and is occupied by Peter’s successors in Rome.

 

[Marybeloved]

It was handed over to the episcopal occupants of a certain place, a certain line of succession, Roman. If it were handed over “to a place” then Italian presidents, kings, prime ministers and emperors would occupy it. As it stands, they don’t. The office resides in the church and is occupied by Peter’s successors in Rome.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It was handed over to the episcopal occupants of a certain place, a certain line of succession, Roman. If it were handed over “to a place” then Italian presidents, kings jemperors, would occupy it. As it stands, they don’t. The office resides in the church and is occupied by Peter’s successors in Rome.

So how do these episcopal successors receive the office?

 

[Marybeloved]

So how do these episcopal successors receive the office?

They are chosen by the church, and occupy the office, didn’t you watch the last conclave on CNN?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then the question is, is this property (of primacy) something ontologically unique to the See of Rome, or is it something which is inherent in the episcopacy?

The claim is that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome and therefore the authority remains with the successors to the episcopal seat of Rome.

 

[cmforte]

Where did I say the authority is passed? Again you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said. I said the authority will never cease. The authority of the Apostles are theirs and theirs alone, and they have it today as they have it in the First Century, and they will have it in the age to come.

Nowhere did I say that the authority is passed on to anyone. In fact, given this passage, its is not highly unlikely that Peter passed on his throne to anyone given there are 12 thrones. So what about the thrones of the other Apostles? Also, its apparent that the 12 thrones are equal, none above the other.

To be clear, I have looked up the web sites of every Orthodox church I could: The Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, even the Oriental ones and those that are in schism witrh the others by refusing the decisions of some ecumenical councils, and they all claim that their first Bishop or Patriarch was an Apostle who established that office and had successors. Here are a few examples:

stmarkla.org/coptic-orthodoxy:

St. Mark The Founder

The Copts are proud of the apostolicity of their church, whose founder is St. Mark; one of the seventy Apostles (Mark 10:10), and one of the four Evangelists. He is regarded by the Coptic hierarchy as the first of their unbroken 117 patriarchs, and also the first of a stream of Egyptian martyrs.

This apostolicity was not only furnished on grounds of its foundation but rather by the persistence of the church in observing the same faith received by the Apostle and his successors, the Holy Fathers.

jerusalem-patriarchate.info/en/hystorical_an.htm:

**The first elected Bishop the Church of Jerusalem was James the Brother of Christ **(+62) who shouldered the pastoral care of the whole Christian community. He himself struggled personally for the internal organization of the Church and proved a counseling leader of the whole ecclesiastic life from the first days of the dissemination and prevalence of Christianity.

  Specifically he defined the ecclesiastic Order, he provided for the divine worship and composed according to tradition the text of the first divine Liturgy, which were adopted by the other sibling Churches form Jerusalem. Finally regarding the issue of the relationship of the Law of the Old Testament with the Holy Gospel, namely the disagreements between Jewish Christians and Ethnic (Hellenist) Christians, he provided the solution as president of the Apostolic Synod and emerged as the head exarch among the Apostles and leader of the hierarchs. For his major contribution for the dissemination and consolidation of the new religion, the Sadducees together with the Scribes and the Pharisees condemned him to a martyric death by stoning.

antiochian.org/667:

**Primates of the Apostolic See of Antioch

---

Primates of the Apostolic See of Antioch
(Orthodox Succession) **

1 45-53 The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch.
2 53 The Episcopacy of Eudoius in Antioch.

3 68 The Episcopacy of St. Ignatius (d. 107) in Antioch.

4 100 The Episcopacy of Heros in Antioch.

-Chris

 

[GaryTaylor]

Where did I say the authority is passed? Again you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said.

You said above “their authority will never cease” then related it to the twelve Apostles. I’m not misrepresenting anything. I’m just repeating what you said.

Post 275 if you would like to re-read.

 

[Hesychios]

What other office did the other 11 have other than being apostles (which cannot be passed on), bishops (which was passed on) or the priesthood? The only other office pertaining to the government of the church was Peter’s. I don’t recall that any other existed.

All were given the power to bind and loose.

 

[ConstantineTG]

To be clear, I have looked up the web sites of every Orthodox church I could: The Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, even the Oriental ones and those that are in schism witrh the others by refusing the decisions of some ecumenical councils, and they all claim that their first Bishop or Patriarch was an Apostle who established that office and had successors. Here are a few examples:

stmarkla.org/coptic-orthodoxy:

jerusalem-patriarchate.info/en/hystorical_an.htm:

antiochian.org/667:

-Chris

And I am not saying that it isn’t. Every Church and every bishop during the time of the Apostles were establish by the Apostles. But it does not mean that those bishops they appointed succeeded in their Apostleship. St. Paul himself appointed many bishops among many Churches he establish. St. Thomas built Churches throughout the Middle East all the way to India. None inherited their being Apostles because to be an Apostle is to be one who is sent by Christ himself, and be a witness to His life on earth and teachings. St. Paul of course received divine revelation rather than being a witness to the ministry.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You said above “their authority will never cease” then related it to the twelve Apostles. I’m not misrepresenting anything. I’m just repeating what you said.

Post 275 if you would like to re-read.

You are misrepresenting. Because I said their authority will never cease, you said that I just confirmed that there were successors in the sense of people assuming their office. I never said there are successors in that sense.

 

[Marybeloved]

All were given the power to bind and loose.

Yes, and that pertains to the episcopate (Bishops) and the keys, which I already mentioned. It is not a separate office in itself. So , no, I still insist that other than those I mentioned, no other office of the Apostles existed relevant to ecclessiology.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I said their authority will never cease

How will this happen then?

 

[brumano]

The second part of your post you are making an conjecture. Here’s the thing, when Judas left the 12 and killed himself, they elected someone into his office. The office of the 12 is unique, as promised by Christ that they would rule and judge the new Jerusalem. They are not to be replaced by anyone, they will occupy this same office in the end of time.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 19:28[/BIBLEDRB]

So who will occupy Peter’s throne if every Bishop of Rome from the First Century to the end of time occupied the same throne? To assume someone inherits Peter’s throne means others would also have to inherit the thrones of the other Apostles. But we all know that is not the case. Again, there is no evidence that Peter every passed any office or authority to anyone. Everything is conjecture and speculation, nothing is conclusive.

A conjecture can be accurate or erroneous, but because it is conjecture does not make it either; quite a few Sacred Doctrines could be called conjecture, that doesn’t change our belief in them. There’s more evidence from the Scriptures supporting Apostolic succession than Jn.ch. 21, but we can go back to it again, where it’s Peter again asking The Lord Himself a question about a Church question, it’s vs 21 where Peter sees St. John following too, and he asks “What about this man?” vs. 22 “If I will that he tarry until I come what is that to you, you follow me”. It isn’t wrong to conjecture from this that St.John also has an office, their offices are their priestly ministries, their teachings, their writings, their activities, their spiritualities, and even their individualities but they are all in Christ, who chose them all. And they all have legacies, inheritances that they also pass on in persons in the Church. St Peter’s is the primacy. Succession has to take place in men, or the Church would not be a living Church. The twelve men who were the Apostles are not replaceable as you say, they themselves cannot be replaced in time, place and election but they are all succeded, and one thing that you’re forgetting is that all of those twelve branches were multiplying greatly, even in ActsCh1 when Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers and spoke there was about 120 people in the room.

The pattern and the direction for Apostolic succession is given by The Lord: “as the Father has sent me so I send you” So we see that, so they sent others and those others sent others but they all had to have that Apostolic sending, and they also have to have the teaching which comes down through the ages from the Apostles.

 

[LionHeart777]

Yes, and that pertains to the episcopate (Bishops) and the keys, which I already mentioned. It is not a separate office in itself. So , no, I still insist that other than those I mentioned, no other office of the Apostles existed relevant to ecclessiology.

I have a question,

I was under the impression that the Pope had (at least) two offices. He is (at least) the Bishop of Rome and the Pope. I thought the same was true of Metropolitans, Patriarchs, etc. I thought a Patriarch, for example, was that and a Bishop (meaning two offices.) Now, I am having some doubts.

Can someone please clarify.

Thanks.

edit: I know that there is not a separate Holy Order for the Pope (or for a Patriarch or a Metropolitan.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have a question,

I was under the impression that the Pope had (at least) two offices. He is (at least) the Bishop of Rome and the Pope. I thought the same was true of Metropolitans, Patriarchs, etc. I thought a Patriarch, for example, was that and a Bishop (meaning two offices.) Now, I am having some doubts.

Can someone please clarify.

Thanks.

edit: I know that there is not a separate Holy Order for the Pope (or for a Patriarch or a Metropolitan.)

No, there is only one office per bishop. By virtue of being Bishop of Rome, the Pope has the Primacy over the entire Church. Not that he occupies another office. It is the same case with Metropolitans/Archbishops. They have their seat in their cathedral and their see is ranked accordingly. So a Metropolitan See is still an eparchy/diocese but ranked as a Metropolitan see to denote that this is where the primus of the designated territory sits.

 

[brumano]

And I am not saying that it isn’t. Every Church and every bishop during the time of the Apostles were establish by the Apostles. But it does not mean that those bishops they appointed succeeded in their Apostleship. St. Paul himself appointed many bishops among many Churches he establish. St. Thomas built Churches throughout the Middle East all the way to India. None inherited their being Apostles because to be an Apostle is to be one who is sent by Christ himself, and be a witness to His life on earth and teachings. St. Paul of course received divine revelation rather than being a witness to the ministry.

All the Apostles received divine revelation, not just St Paul, What happened to him immediately after his divine revelation and his blindness; Ananias was sent to him and layed hands on him, then he was baptized then he stayed some days with the disciples in Damascus, this is all in Acts ch9. Then when he arrived in Jerusalem, Barnabas took charge of him and brought him to the Apostles, after he enraged the Hellenists, the Brothers took him away to Ceasarea and sent him on his way to Tarsus. St Paul does not have some different church or Apostolate from the Church that was already growing so all the bishops that he ordained like St Timothy are in that same church. If you really read objectively you’ll notice that in almost every place he journeyed to, a pilgrim church is already forming or formed; there’s often an organized presbytry already there. You’ll also notice in his writings from his few quotes of the Lord that he learned the Gospel from the Apostles; Peter,John and James and not through pure divine revealation.

I don’t know what Doctrine you’re trying to make in these posts, but if it’s something like the Eastern Church is not in succession to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I don’t think too many Easterners are going to agree with that, let alone any Westerners.