What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[InnominePatris]

You do realize that there was no Pope, don’t you?

He was dead. The Latin church had not elected another.

The Cardinals acted with out authority and created the Great Sin of schism.

There was not Pope in July,1054. However, the action against Roman Pope and Western happened even earlier. In 9th century, Photius held Ecumenical Council without the approval of Roman Pope and excommunicated Pope Nicholas I. At that moment, Photius was excommunicated and he was not able to excommunicate others. Moreover, in spite of the arguments between Western and Eastern Church, the whole church was in FULL COMMUNION with Pope and Eastern Church was also under the jurisdiction of Roman Pope. Eastern Church ACCEPTED THE JURISDICTION OF POPE AT THAT MOMENT.
BTW, we admitted that Cardinal Humbert was not rational enough when dealing with this matter. However, it does not mean Catholic Church is the ONLY SINNER in Great Schism.
Disobedience of the Eastern Church(Schism of Photius and confrontation of Michael Cerularius) may be the unreasonable because they admitted the jurisdiction at that time. Pope also managed the affairs of EC before the schism,

 

[Hesychios]

1053 A.D.,The Patriarch of Constantinople Michael closed all Latin Rite churches in Constantinople

These were his parishes. He had a right to open or close them as needed.

The Latin rite priests were incardinated into his diocese. They had to obey him as their bishop,

 

[Hesychios]

However, they never divide the church into 2 parts.

It seems that renegade Cardinals do, and when a Pope is elected and has a chance to repair the damage, he does not do so.

In Catholic Church, we believe that Popes are the successors of St, Peter,

All bishops are the successors of Saint Peter.

 

[Hesychios]

However, the action against Roman Pope and Western happened even earlier. In 9th century, Photius held Ecumenical Council without the approval of Roman Pope and excommunicated Pope Nicholas I. At that moment, Photius was excommunicated and he was not able to excommunicate others. Moreover, in spite of the arguments between Western and Eastern Church, the whole church was in FULL COMMUNION with Pope and Eastern Church was also under the jurisdiction of Roman Pope …

It seems like a lot of new apologists, after having realized that the Roman Catholics actually started the great schism, like to drag out their old whipping boy, Saint Photios the Great, who in fact did not start the Great East-West schism, launched the great missions of Ss Cyril and Methodios which evangelized half of Europe (including some Catholic countries) and was a great defender of Holy Orthodoxy against errors.

This is the problem with these young people reading the Old Catholic Encyclopedia and Tan books and stuff like that. They can not help absorbing all this mis-information and cold war prejudices.

It poisons their minds with bad history and 19th century invective.

 

[InnominePatris]

These were his parishes. He had a right to open or close them as needed.

The Latin rite priests were incardinated into his diocese. They had to obey him as their bishop,

As need??? Do you mean that closing Latin Rite parishes when there were Latin Rite Christians in Constantinople is ACCORDING TO THE NEED?
Yes,he could close the churches AS HE LIKE. But do you think closing parishes which were needed by other Latin Rite Christians is suitable. Do you think making difficulties to stop Latin Christians from attending Latin Rite liturgy is a offensive action?
Let me give you an example.When Byzantine Catholics came to America,they used Byzantine Liturgy but they were still CATHOLIC. However, the Archbishop John Ireland suppressed the Eastern Liturgy and forced Byzantine Catholic to become Latin Catholic.He expelled married priests and closed Byzantine Catholic parishes.
YES,HE CAN CLOSE PARISHES AS HE LIKE
BUT IS IT SUITABLE?
As a result, most of the Byzantine Catholic became RUSSIAN ORTHODOX then. This kind of action just KICKED THEM OUT OF CATHOLIC CHURCH!
SO, you think kicking Westerners out by closing their parishes is REASONABLE?
Do you think it is good for communion?
If you never consider communion, I have nothing to say then.

 

[InnominePatris]

All bishops are the successors of Saint Peter.

You are right. But something you need to notice is that, bishops are the successors of St.Peter due to THEIR FULL COMMUNION WITH ROMAN POPE.
Actually all bishops inherit St Peter’s jurisdiction over the church THROUGH the Pope.

 

[Hesychios]

As need??? Do you mean that closing Latin Rite parishes when there were Latin Rite Christians in Constantinople is ACCORDING TO THE NEED?

The point is, this was not the business of the bishop of Rome, and certainly not the business of staffers of the Pope, who should have returned to Rome as soon as they learned the boss was dead.

The Latin rite parishes or missions in Constantinople could only be erected with the permission of the bishop of that city. They functioned under his omophor.

We had a Belorussian Catholic mission right here in Chicago (I am familiar with the place). It belonged to the Archdiocese of Chicago and the Archbishop of Chicago closed it. That was his right.

It’s really no one else’s business, the Catholic bishop of Minsk has no more right to object than the Archbishop of New York.

The Archbishop of Denver erected a Russian Catholic parish for people of that rite in his city. He has the right to open it and he has the right in the future to close it, and probably will some day. The Archbishop of Manila, the Archbishop of Paris and the Archbishop of Moscow have no say whatever in this. Foreign bishops have no right to complain. This is fundamental to the ecclesiology of the church.

If the bishop of Rome wanted to get the Latin rite parishes in Constantinople reopened, he could ask, but that’s as far as it goes. He has no right to demand a re-opening, and his Cardinals have no right to even be in the same city without permission, especially when their boss is dead.

 

[Hesychios]

As need??? Do you mean that closing Latin Rite parishes when there were Latin Rite Christians in Constantinople is ACCORDING TO THE NEED?

The point is, this was not the business of the bishop of Rome, and certainly not the business of staffers of the Pope, who should have returned to Rome as soon as they learned the boss was dead.

The Latin rite parishes or missions in Constantinople could only be erected with the permission of the bishop of that city. They functioned under his omophor.

We had a Belorussian Catholic mission right here in Chicago (I am familiar with the place). It belonged to the Archdiocese of Chicago and the Archbishop of Chicago closed it. That was his right.

It’s really no one else’s business, the Catholic bishop of Minsk has no more right to object than the Archbishop of New York.

The Archbishop of Denver erected a Russian Catholic parish for people of that rite in his city. He has the right to open it and he has the right in the future to close it, and probably will some day. The Archbishop of Manila, the Archbishop of Paris and the Archbishop of Moscow have no say whatever in this. Foreign bishops have no right to complain. This is fundamental to the ecclesiology of the church.

If the bishop of Rome wanted to get the Latin rite parishes in Constantinople reopened, he could ask, but that’s as far as it goes. He has no right to demand a re-opening, and his Cardinals have no right to even be in the same city without permission, especially when their boss is dead.

 

[LionHeart777]

Well, the topic of this thread is about the opinions of the Orthodox on the Pope.

It seemed that way to me, but I see the last statement by the OP: “Also, as a Roman Catholic, what are the evidences for us to support these doctrines and how can we reply on these arguments?” as inviting Catholic opinions/defenses.

 

[dvdjs]

The point is, this was not the business of the bishop of Rome, and certainly not the business of staffers of the Pope, who should have returned to Rome as soon as they learned the boss was dead.
…

If the bishop of Rome wanted to get the Latin rite parishes in Constantinople reopened, he could ask, but that’s as far as it goes. He has no right to demand a re-opening, and his Cardinals have no right to even be in the same city without permission, especially when their boss is dead.

This perspective probably helps to explain why there has to be bishops of so many Orthodox jurisidictions in the US.

In reality, all bishops are responsible to each other. No bishop is entitled to act capriciously. No bishop is entitled to use the opening or closing of parishes as a political tool,. No bishop is entitled to foment the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament as a political gesture.

The means by which a bishop who has gone off the tracks and has put his own ambition first (ref. in this context: any work on the life of Cerularius; he was ultimately sent packing) is reined incould bery well be messy and, let’s say, highly economical; it very well might include demands. How, exactly did the EP handle the JP’s actions in America ~a decade ago?

Side-bar: were the Papal legates in Constantinople without permission? When, exactly were they informed of the passing of the Pope who sent them? Who had the power to give or deny permission for them to be there? Does the EP still need to give permission for any Orthodox priest to visit Istanbul?

 

[Nine_Two]

This perspective probably helps to explain why there has to be bishops of so many Orthodox jurisidictions in the US.

The difference is we recognize that is an irregularity. The same comment could be made for Catholics in the Middle East, where it is somehow seen as quite normal - don’t throw stones in glass houses.

In reality, all bishops are responsible to each other. No bishop is entitled to act capriciously. No bishop is entitled to use the opening or closing of parishes as a political tool,. No bishop is entitled to foment the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament as a political gesture.

All Bishops are responsible to their Holy Synod. While a bishop should not open or close parishes as a political tool, he has every right to for whatever reason he wants. The very act we’re discussing was retaliation for a similar act in the West. Or was it ok to close Eastern parishes in Magna Graecia?

The means by which a bishop who has gone off the tracks and has put his own ambition first (ref. in this context: any work on the life of Cerularius; he was ultimately sent packing) is reined incould bery well be messy and, let’s say, highly economical; it very well might include demands. How, exactly did the EP handle the JP’s actions in America ~a decade ago?

It could be messy, and it was messy, but we had to do it. The ambitions of the Papacy were just too much.

Side-bar: were the Papal legates in Constantinople without permission? When, exactly were they informed of the passing of the Pope who sent them? Who had the power to give or deny permission for them to be there? Does the EP still need to give permission for any Orthodox priest to visit Istanbul?

While I can’t answer your first two questions, the answer to your third question is yes, and the answer to your fourth question is yes. In fact my priest is planning a trip to the Holy Mountain (which is considered to be under the direct control of the Patriarch) soon and he was complaining about the red tape he had to clear to go.

 

[dvdjs]

The difference is we recognize that is an irregularity. The same comment could be made for Catholics in the Middle East, where it is somehow seen as quite normal - don’t throw stones in glass houses.

The glass house is your own. You see irregularity but have grown it and persist in it. I don’t see that that term applies to Catholics in the middle east.

While a bishop should not open or close parishes as a political tool, he has every right to for whatever reason he wants. The very act we’re discussing was retaliation for a similar act in the West. Or was it ok to close Eastern parishes in Magna Graecia?

Excellent. So to defend Cerularius, are you accepting that importation of Latin clergy and bishops into Norman territory? Fantastic. The Pope and Byzantine Emperor were collaborating on this problem and Cerularius was throwing wrenches into the works. Well he was going after the Emperor too.

It could be messy, and it was messy, but we had to do it. The ambitions of the Papacy were just too much.

Yes, so ambitious: stop desecrating the Blessed sacrament in our churches.

While I can’t answer your first two questions, the answer to your third question is yes, and the answer to your fourth question is yes. In fact my priest is planning a trip to the Holy Mountain (which is considered to be under the direct control of the Patriarch) soon and he was complaining about the red tape he had to clear to go.

Of course that does not answer my question. Istanbul is not Mount Athos. Even in the days of Cerularius, the EP was not the Emperor, as much as thought he should be.

 

[dvdjs]

All Bishops are responsible to their Holy Synod.

All bishops have a moral responsibility before God. Their responsibility is not limited to their Synod - how legalistic! Of course, even at a legalistic level, there is much more to the story - let’s avoid the pretense that the EOs - in America - are in agreement about the interplay of primacy, synodality, and congregationalism.

 

[Nine_Two]

The glass house is your own. You see irregularity but have grown it and persist in it. I don’t see that that term applies to Catholics in the middle east.

No, of course you don’t.

Yes, so ambitious: stop desecrating the Blessed sacrament in our churches.

Am I to take this that you aren’t looking for a serious discussion? Just interested in wallowing in your hatred of Orthodox?

 

[dvdjs]

No, of course you don’t.

And neither should anyone. I am sure that it has not escaped attention that we have developed the notion of “particular” churches. I think that that is an important development responds in a positive way to globalization.

Am I to take this that you aren’t looking for a serious discussion?

That is serious and was a key factor in the inter-patriachal interactions that led to the the dispatch of the legates.

 

[Nine_Two]

And neither should anyone. I am sure that it has not escaped attention that we have developed the notion of “particular” churches. I think that that is an important development responds in a positive way to globalization.

That was my original point. Good catch there.

That is serious and was a key factor in the inter-patriachal interactions that led to the the dispatch of the legates.

My desecrating of your sacraments? Ok then.

 

[dvdjs]

My desecrating of your sacraments?

My posts do not refer to any individual - and obviously not to some one not around in 1054.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m sorry, I just can’t take you seriously anymore. You’ve turned yourself into a caricature.

 

[Volodymyr]

That is a good point, that throughout history, not all Orthodox have had the consensus that seems to be the more popular modern one.

And how many Catholics and their bishops opposed definition of infallbile of bishop of Rome at and brfore 1st Vatikan council!! Ultramontanism has grown like a cancer in Rome since 11th century! Your dear Bishop of Rome has changed from
in Leo the Saint a brother and teacher to a powerful temporal ruler who like Grgory VII wants his foot kissed by his used to be brothers- now his vassals! What brother

All bishops are the successors of Saint Peter.
You are right. But something you need to notice is that, bishops are the successors of St.Peter due to THEIR FULL COMMUNION WITH ROMAN POPE.
Actually all bishops inherit St Peter’s jurisdiction over the church THROUGH the Pope.

This is so unbelievable!! The bishops are now not successors of Apostles and do not receive their order by laying on of hands from Apisles but from being in agreement with Pope of Rome! Do Catholics not see this as corruption
of ultramontsnism or papalism as opposed to Christian orthodoxy!

 

[TrueLight]

And how many Catholics and their bishops opposed definition of infallbile of bishop of Rome at and brfore 1st Vatikan council!! Ultramontanism has grown like a cancer in Rome since 11th century! Your dear Bishop of Rome has changed from
in Leo the Saint a brother and teacher to a powerful temporal ruler who like Grgory VII wants his foot kissed by his used to be brothers- now his vassals! What brother

All bishops are the successors of Saint Peter.
You are right. But something you need to notice is that, bishops are the successors of St.Peter due to THEIR FULL COMMUNION WITH ROMAN POPE.
Actually all bishops inherit St Peter’s jurisdiction over the church THROUGH the Pope.

Thanks to someone’s recommendation, I am presently reading “The Early Papacy” by Fortescue.

I’ll get back to you.