What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[Marybeloved]

Thanks Marybeloved,

Just to clarify,

As a Catholic, I believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Pope. I just want to know if the Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Father has more than one office? I believe I was in error by thinking that he did have more than one office, just wanted some reassurance that this was an error I made.

But if your assumption was that the Pope has more than one office, then you were exactly right! He does! The CCC (The official Catechism by the magisterium)-is quite explicit on this. If you read the CCC on The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church, as it’s titled, you’ll come across this:

**The episcopal college and its head, the Pope ***
880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostlesbelongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope. *
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm

Now, if you look at the last two parts I’ve underlined above, you’ll see two distinct offices. One is that of the college of Bishops united with the Pope. The first underlined part (No. 880), clearly shows that it’s a single body and that the head is one of the college “chosen from among them”. No. 881 speaks explicitly of an office that this college shares, and No. 882 speaks of an office that belongs to the Pope (This is dogmatic, from the Vatican I Council). So obviously, the Pope has two offices, the one shared with the college of Bishops and the one he occupies as Vicar of Christ, Pastor of the Universal Church.

Peace.

 

[Marybeloved]

When it works well it is very good.

When it works badly, it is very bad.

That’s robust.

Does anyone know why Hesychios has been banned? Does this mean that he is forever forbidden from coming here or that he can reapply after some prolonged period?

 

[josie_L]

The early Church was very fragmentated. They’re just keeping that tradition in honor

Athough, he cannot respond, I am confused by his view of the early Church, i.e., it was not fragmented (you might as well state the apostles were fragmented which we know they were not).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Athough, he cannot respond, I am confused by his view of the early Church, i.e., it was not fragmented (you might as well state the apostles were fragmented which we know they were not).

Josie, you raise a fair point. The Church in the days of the Apostles inherently united. The ecclesiastical structures that developed afterward in the first centuries started to exhibit signs of segregation, if you will, along political bounds and ultimately developed into a formally recognized Pentarchy of Patriarchates by the sixth century. It might be somewhat misleading to describe the situation at that time as “fragmented”, yet it was certainly a different mode of union than the brotherhood that existed among the Apostles.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Athough, he cannot respond, I am confused by his view of the early Church, i.e., it was not fragmented (you might as well state the apostles were fragmented which we know they were not).

Josie, you raise a fair point. The Church in the days of the Apostles inherently united. The ecclesiastical structures that developed afterward in the first centuries started to exhibit signs of segregation, if you will, along political bounds and ultimately developed into a formally recognized Pentarchy of Patriarchates by the sixth century. It might be somewhat misleading to describe the situation at that time as “fragmented”, yet it was certainly a different mode of union than the brotherhood that existed among the Apostles.

By fragmented, he means that there is no central authority like we have today. The Catholic Church of course is a centralized authority in the Vatican. The Orthodox Churches are sort of like a Commonwealth, where each autocephalous Church is independent but each one still has their central authority whether a Patriarch (such as Russia) or a synod (such as the OCA). But in the early Church, each Church were seen as an independent unit that each is fully the kingdom of God. The same way that each wafer, each bit and piece of the Eucharist is the fullness of Christ, each Bishop in each Church is fully the Kingdom of God. That is why this is called the Eucharistic Ecclesiology. A bishop, and therefore a Church, is not subordinate to any other.

 

[josie_L]

We are speaking of church governance here.

The church governance was, from the beginning, synodal.

This was true in the west as well as the east

Bishops of Rome did not name bishops outside of their own synod (central Italy, basically). Selection of bishops was a primarily local affair.

As written by Pope Boniface (ca. 420 A.D.) in an epistle to the Bishops of Thessaly:

The institution of the Universal Church took its beginning from the honour bestowed on blessed Peter, in whom its Government and Headship reside. For from him, as its Source,
did ecclesiastical discipline flow over all the churches, when the culture of religion had begun to make progress. The precepts of the Synod of Nicea bear no other testimony; insomuch that that Synod did not attempt to make any regulations in his regard, as it saw that nothing could be conferred that was superior to his won dignity (merit); it knew, in fine, that everything had been bestowed on him by the Word of the Lord. It is, therefore, certain that this Church is to the churches spread over the whole world, as the Head is to its own members; from which Church whoso has cut himself off becomes an alien from the Christian religion, whereas he has begun not to be in the same bonds of fellowship. Now I hear that certain Bishops, the Apostolic right despised, are attempting a novelty which is in direct opposition to the special injunctions of Christ, seeing that they are trying to separate themselves from communion, or, to speak more correctly, from the communion of the Apostolic See; seeking aid from men to whom the regulations of the Church have never given their sanction that they should be of superior authority. . . . Receive, therefore, from us an admonition, and a rebuke, of which we offer one to the Prelates (who side with us), the other to the separatists (quoting 1 Cor. iv.21) . . . For you know that both are in blessed Peter’s power, - to rebuke, that is, with meekness the meek, and the proud with a rod. Wherefore, show to the Head the honour due to it; for we would not have the members at variance with each other, as the strife between them reaches unto us, when our brother and fellow-bishop, Rufus, is accounted by you a person to be condemned . . . It is not becoming in the brethren to feel galled at another’s power. Assuredly, as the Apostolic See holds the princedom for this, that it may receive the lawful complaints of all, if in anything his correction seemed to be excessive, it became you, by sending an embassy to appeal to us, upon whom you may see the charge of everything devolves, , , Let this novel presumption cease. Let everyone who accounts himself a bishop, obey our ordinance. Let no one presume to ordain Bishops throughout Illyricum, without our fellow Bishop Rufus privy to it,"

Bishop Rufus (Thessalonica) acted as the vicar of the Bishop of Rome (Pope Boniface)

And I find this comment by one of the three legates at the Council of Chalcedon elucidating as well:

The commissioners wanted to know why Dioscorus was singled out for accusation. Papal legate Lucentius replied:

It is necessary that he give an account for his judgment, because, although it was not his place to act as judge, he presumed and dared to make a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, which was never lawful [and] was never done. [ACO II, Vol. 3, Pt. 1, 40]

or this comment made by Theodoret of Cyrus after the Robber Council:

Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus was being deposed and had appealed to Rome saying:

To you, indeed, it is fitting that the primacy belong in every respect… Your(See) has received from God an affluence of goods: it is the greatest and most illustrious, it presides over the universe, it is teeming with inhabitants…I have been condemned without having been judged. But I await the sentence of your apostolic see… I beg and urge your holiness, to whose just tribunal I appeal to help me… I implore you to tell me whether or not I must accept this unjust deposition, because I await your sentence. [PG 83: 1313-16]

or

After the council Pope Martin appointed John, bishop of Philadelphia, as a special vicar in the east with wide authority. Martin told John to:

…correct the things which are wanting, and appoint bishops, priests and deacons in every city of those which are subject to the see of both Jerusalem and of Antioch, with us charging you to do this in every way, by virtue of the apostolic authority which was given to us by the Lord in the person of the most holy Peter, prince of the apostles, on account of the necessities of our time, and the pressure of the nations. [Mansi X, 806 sq.]

I have a hard time believing that Church governance was simply synodal.

 

[josie_L]

By fragmented, he means that there is no central authority like we have today. The Catholic Church of course is a centralized authority in the Vatican. The Orthodox Churches are sort of like a Commonwealth, where each autocephalous Church is independent but each one still has their central authority whether a Patriarch (such as Russia) or a synod (such as the OCA). But in the early Church, each Church were seen as an independent unit that each is fully the kingdom of God. The same way that each wafer, each bit and piece of the Eucharist is the fullness of Christ, each Bishop in each Church is fully the Kingdom of God. That is why this is called the Eucharistic Ecclesiology. A bishop, and therefore a Church, is not subordinate to any other.

And yet we know the role St. Peter played in the early Church, i.e., as Head of the Church.

p.s. But the kingdom of God was meant to be universal, and therefore, each independent unit could not in their own right be considered universal.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And yet we know the role St. Peter played in the early Church, i.e., as Head of the Church.

p.s. But the kingdom of God was meant to be universal, and therefore, each independent unit could not in their own right be considered universal.

Why not? Is not one piece of the Eucharist the fullness of Christ?

 

[ConstantineTG]

As written by Pope Boniface (ca. 420 A.D.) in an epistle to the Bishops of Thessaly:

And I find this comment by one of the three legates at the Council of Chalcedon elucidating as well:

or this comment made by Theodoret of Cyrus after the Robber Council:

Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus was being deposed and had appealed to Rome saying:

or

I have a hard time believing that Church governance was simply synodal.

Note that by the third century, Rome has clearly some form of primacy among the Churches of the time. But in no way is this primacy considered the same as how primacy is understood today.

 

[dzheremi]

If no individual church (I’m assuming that’s what you mean by “unit”) can be considered universal, then what are we to make of Rome?

In the ancient times, as today, the Church was always considered to be the Church in X location – it is the faith held that is universal, but the people themselves still live in particular geographical locations. Hence we have in the ancient witness of the Pauline epistles the churches of Corinth, Philippi, Rome, Ephesus, Colossae, and Galatia. The Christians in any particular city constituted the Church as it was in that location, not some sort of satellite or incomplete piece of the Church. This is still the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church, wherein the Church in any particular location is the body of believers found in that place that are in communion with and served by the canonical bishop of their territory, holding to the faith that is held by the believers who are throughout the world. I am just as much a member of the Church in Albuquerque, NM as I would be if I were at the Patriarchal city of Alexandria, or in Holy Echmiadzin, or even Rome. If any one of those places were to be destroyed or transferred to some other adverse earthly power, the Church would not cease to be. It does not depend on imperial power centers.

 

[Marybeloved]

If no individual church (I’m assuming that’s what you mean by “unit”) can be considered universal, then what are we to make of Rome?

In the ancient times, as today, the Church was always considered to be the Church in X location – it is the faith held that is universal, but the people themselves still live in particular geographical locations.

I find this hard to believe considering that the name “The Catholic Church” was applied to the body of believers pretty early. If only the “faith” is universal, but not the church, then what did the early church mean by “The Catholic (ie universal) Church”?

 

[Cavaradossi]

As written by Pope Boniface (ca. 420 A.D.) in an epistle to the Bishops of Thessaly

There is nothing remarkable about Boniface, Archbishop of Rome, attempting to exercise authority over Illyricum, an area over which he traditionally had jurisdiction. It is in fact as unremarkable as the Archbishop of Alexandria attempting to exercise his own jurisdiction over Africa. Pope Boniface at that time was facing a crisis in Illyricum. In fact, a party of Illyrian bishops managed, just a year later in 421, to have the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II, transfer jurisdiction over Illyricum from Rome to Constantinople. It was only through the intervention of the Western Emperor, Honorius, that Pope Boniface convinced Theodosius II to reverse his decree.

And I find this comment by one of the three legates at the Council of Chalcedon elucidating as well

The Council’s response is equally elucidating. After Lucentius finished listing this charge—a charge which was unfounded, as it was in fact Emperor Theodosius II who had called Ephesus II, not Dioscoros, and because Pope Leo in fact acquiesced to the will of Theodosius II, despite his objections, just as Pope Leo acquiesced to the will of Emperor Marcian, despite his objections to the council convening in Chalcedon—the senate continued to press the papal legates for a specific charge against Dioscoros, indicating that they did not accept this particular accusation. It was not until Lucentius pointed out that it would be inappropriate for one who was summoned to be charged with crimes (he wrote: ‘We will not tolerate so great an outrage both to you and to us as to have this person taking his seat when he has been summoned to judgement.’), that the senate bid Dioscoros to be seated in the center of the council so that charges against him, written by those whom he allegedly had wronged, could be read out.

or this comment made by Theodoret of Cyrus after the Robber Council:

Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus was being deposed and had appealed to Rome saying

Theodoret, of course, had a vested interest in singing the praises of the Pope, as he had lost his see, and he knew that an appeal to Pope Leo in accordance with the canons of Sardica might avail him a retrial or a reversal of the synod’s judgment.

or

But Pope Saint Martin believing that his representative had such powers is not enough to demonstrate the Catholicity of the concept. One would have to demonstrate that his representative was received and recognized as having those powers in those places mentioned in his instructions to Bishop John.

 

[mercytruth]

And yet we know the role St. Peter played in the early Church, i.e., as Head of the Church.

p.s. But the kingdom of God was meant to be universal, and therefore, each independent unit could not in their own right be considered universal.

Each local unit, or Bishoporic is a member of the universal faith that was established and ordained by each of the apostles who had been sent by Jesus Christ, who himself, was sent by God his Father. St. Peter held the primacy among the apostles, but neither he nor the other apostles were presiding bishops. St. Peter was for instance, given the revelation that Jesus is the Christ. St. Peter for instance, was given the revelation that the gospel was to be given to the Gentiles. No one has assumed the primacy of Peter, because there are no apostles since the apostolic age.

Now, I would assume that a local Bishoporic of the early church may have, as did the apostles of Jesus Christ, send out evangelists to establish churches with the authority to ordain bishops. As St. Mark, and St. Luke are called evangelists, and were sent by the apostles, and established and ordained bishops of the church of Alexandria.

Moreover, the epistles of Ignatius, and the Constitutions of the Apostles state that the prebysters of a bishoporic are to represent the apostles, as the apostles represented the type of the Sandhedrin in their day.

In other words, they were to be the expostitors and exegesists of the law of Moses, the prophets and the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. They were instructors of doctrine and morals to the local bishops. This is confirmed by the epistles of St. Paul. When there were questions within the local bishoporics that the apostle Paul had established and ordained, the apostle Paul would write an epistle to them to explain, or to resolve controversies.

The bishop was to represent the High Priest at the Eucharistic Mass. In holiness, and authority he was to represent our Father in heaven. The deacon was representative of the servitude of our Lord Jesus Christ, and were the eyes and ears of the local bishop, much like Jesus Christ was the eyes and ears of our heavenly Father while he served his Father on earth.

This is a brief overview of the governing responsibilites of the clergy within in the local bishoporic of the early church, and hopefully, I have not misrepresented it. I stand corrected if I have.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[ByzCathCantor]

No one has assumed the primacy of Peter, because there are no apostles since the apostolic age.

Well, that is at the center of the debate.

An short yet interesting read, a transcript of the 8 July 1992 General Audience of Blessed Pope John Paul II: Bishops Are Successors of the Apostles

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, that is at the center of the debate.

An short yet interesting read, a transcript of the 8 July 1992 General Audience of Blessed Pope John Paul II: Bishops Are Successors of the Apostles

People are easily confused by what successorship means. The bishops succeed the Apostles in a way that they lead the local Churches and that the Church is built upon them. But they do not succeed the Apostles in the same sense that the Apostles are the Apostles. As mentioned earlier in the thread, Apostles have a special and unique role as being eyewitnesses to the ministry, passion and resurrection of Christ. They were sent out by Christ himself. Their place in the Church is unique and cannot be passed on. The bishops succeed in a sense that they are now the leaders of the Church since there are no more Apostles. But they are not Apostles in the true sense of the word.

 

[mercytruth]

Well, that is at the center of the debate.

An short yet interesting read, a transcript of the 8 July 1992 General Audience of Blessed Pope John Paul II: Bishops Are Successors of the Apostles

I think all of us interpret the functions of the apostolic ministry through the filters of one’s own perceptions that are intrinsically linked to our upbringing as Catholics of the West, or of the East.

Oh yes, we can bring in scriptures to support these perceptions. We can quote early church fathers also.

The only reason for bringing up the various orders of the clergy from the epistles of Ignatius, and from the the Apostolic Constitutions is to bring in church documents that pre-date our preconceived conditioning filters.

Was the ecclesialogy of the primitive early church patterned after the Levitical priesthood, and the Judaism of the Synagogue? This is the question we must ask ourselves.

The epistles of Ignatius, and the Constitutions of the Apostles say it was. The teaching functions of presbyters of the church were representative of the apostles, as the apostles were to be representative of the Sandhedrin in their relaition to the High Priest. The bishops did not represent the functions of the apostles. They represented the functions of the Levitical High Priest.

My personal opinion is that we should endeavor to find out whether or not the ecclesialogy of the primitive church was patterned after the Levitical/Judaic. I also think that it is a shame that we should have a division over who has the primacy of authority within the church. The mother of James and John wanted her sons to sit at the left and right hand of Jesus in the kingdom to come, and we all know what Jesus’ response to that request involves.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The bishops succeed in a sense that they are now the leaders of the Church since there are no more Apostles. But they are not Apostles in the true sense of the word.

That should be well appreciated, yet it is recognized that confusion still exists among some on the meaning of Apostolic succession. Absent such, the debate would once again pick up with the role of the episcopacy in preserving the unity of the Church. The question as to whether Peter was given the unique charge to preserve the unity of the Twelve and the others in the Apostolic Church then comes into play. If one accepts that he had this role, one asks whether or not this responsibility was passed on to his specific successors, to the episcopacy at large, or both.

The Apostles could not have lived forever, and the Church would need established leadership and the means to pass responsibility on to successors, as well. While no one can deny the unique character of the Apostles and their personal charge, even mere human logic would have to consider that the service they provided to the Church would have to continue through the service of others. The successors would have to preserve the Deposit of Faith and the unity of the Church, as well as ensuring is stability and growth (cannot forget the evangelical aspect).

 

[ConstantineTG]

That should be well appreciated, yet it is recognized that confusion still exists among some on the meaning of Apostolic succession. Absent such, the debate would once again pick up with the role of the episcopacy in preserving the unity of the Church. The question as to whether Peter was given the unique charge to preserve the unity of the Twelve and the others in the Apostolic Church then comes into play. If one accepts that he had this role, one asks whether or not this responsibility was passed on to his specific successors, to the episcopacy at large, or both.

The Apostles could not have lived forever, and the Church would need established leadership and the means to pass responsibility on to successors, as well. While no one can deny the unique character of the Apostles and their personal charge, even mere human logic would have to consider that the service they provided to the Church would have to continue through the service of others. The successors would have to preserve the Deposit of Faith and the unity of the Church, as well as ensuring is stability and growth (cannot forget the evangelical aspect).

The things is, the Church Fathers in the early life of the Church did not think of an ecclesiology that we have today, or even 1000 years ago. They would have imagined that the Gospel will be proclaimed to all the ends of the earth but does this mean a central Church government? It would have been impossible back then. Even when the Churches in the Roman Empire were recognized by the Empire, what of the other Churches in the East? The Assyrian Church, the Churches in India, were they subject to a central authority given they were so far away from Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria? Perhaps the reason there were a lot of heresies back then is the fact that there was no strong central government. I believe in the universal ecclessiology, but not as a divine mandate from God, but rather a necessity in the development of the Church and her ecclessiology.

 

[dzheremi]

I find this hard to believe considering that the name “The Catholic Church” was applied to the body of believers pretty early. If only the “faith” is universal, but not the church, then what did the early church mean by “The Catholic (ie universal) Church”?

“Catholic” was not a noun at first; it was (and for the Orthodox Church, still is) an adjective. See the Online Etymology Dictionary, which gives its history as follows:

catholic (adj.)
mid-14c., “of the doctrines of the ancient Church,” literally “universally accepted,” from Fr. catholique, from L.L. catholicus “universal, general,” from Gk. katholikos, from phrase kath’ holou “on the whole, in general,” from kata “about” + gen. of holos “whole” (see safe (adj.)). Applied to the Church in Rome c.1554, after the Reformation began. General sense of “of interest to all, universal” is from 1550s. As a noun, attested from 1560s.

Early uses of the term were translations from the Greek (into Latin, French, etc. as above). As you can see, it didn’t become a noun referring to a particular church until the 1560s (as a result of the Reformation in Europe). When we, as Orthodox people, say in the Creed that “we believe in one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”, we are saying that we are the Church which is catholic, in the original sense of the term – that we preserve the doctrine that is ancient and universally accepted as it was in the days of the apostles who taught that same doctrine to the believers in Palestine, Greece, Syria, Asia Minor, etc. (back when they were “the church at Corinth”, “the church at Philippi”, “the church at Rome”, “the church at Antioch”, etc.) These were all the same church, differing only in their geographical and cultural respects (the cities being largely Greek-speaking, while the common people in the villages spoke Aramaic, Coptic, or whatever the local language was). And what unites the Church? Its faith. I am pretty sure that Rome agrees with this idea, despite seeing itself differently than the other apostolic churches see it.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The things is, the Church Fathers in the early life of the Church did not think of an ecclesiology that we have today, or even 1000 years ago. They would have imagined that the Gospel will be proclaimed to all the ends of the earth …

… well of course not. The “ends of the earth” were not even truly known back then.

I believe in the universal ecclessiology, but not as a divine mandate from God, but rather a necessity in the development of the Church and her ecclessiology.

That is the argument that universal jurisdiction is borne out of necessity. A comparison of the type and durability of the unity supported by the developed models - Catholic and Orthodox - in the modern context becomes possible, if one is to fairly consider that the realities of today are much different.