What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[Hesychios]

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

Good luck with that.

Adrian Fortescue was a major contributor to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, which is why the OCE is widely regarded as such a poor source for Eastern Catholic subjects. Hopefully his books are better than his articles.

I will grant that he was a very knowledgeable man (a convert from Anglicanism) but he could not keep his biases from showing.

Perhaps that’s what you need right now.

I would suggest The Rise of the Papacy by the late Father Robert B. Eno, a professor of church history at the Catholic University of America, as long as you are doing some research.

 

[TrueLight]

Good luck with that.

PI will grant that he was a very knowledgeable man (a convert from Anglicanism) but he could not keep his biases from showing.

Perhaps that’s what you need right now.

When it comes to this issue, I’d say it’s hard to write anything without some sort of bias.

I would suggest The Rise of the Papacy by the late Father Robert B. Eno, a professor of church history at the Catholic University of America, as long as you are doing some research.

Thanks. What do you like about this one?

 

[Hesychios]

Thanks. What do you like about this one?

I read this years ago, when it was published by Michael Glazier Books, it’s not very big (I think it had a green cover then). I found it to be scholarly and absent of bias. I suppose as a professor he composed it from lecture notes but I don’t know, I have not read it in many years and not owned it since I went to China.

The author was a member of the Order of Saint-Sulpice, which specialty was the training of priests. In accordance with that this book was written, there was no attempt so far as I could tell to spin it.

Interestingly, if you know anything about Dan Brown’s book The DaVinci Code, he mentions the mother church of this order.

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/...sulpice/resized/chapel-virgin-cc-meditant.jpg

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/...sulpice/rose-line-cc-emilio-del-prado-350.jpg

 

[Lucky7]

AS others have stated I believe it is the difference between the primacy (first among equals) vs supremacy of the Pope. I honestly do not understand the thniking that all of the apostles were equals. Clearly one of them (Peter) was set apart via the “keys”.

It would make more sense to me if the Orthodox argued that the supreme bishop who follows in Peter’s footsteps was from somewhere other than Rome. To say they were all equals does not. There is no evidence that Christ saw Peter the same way as he saw the others. And the “keys” suggests something much more than just being first. So if the Bishop of Rome wasn’t the successor of Peter (the leader of the apostles), who was?

 

[Nine_Two]

AS others have stated I believe it is the difference between the primacy (first among equals) vs supremacy of the Pope. I honestly do not understand the thniking that all of the apostles were equals. Clearly one of them (Peter) was set apart via the “keys”.

It would make more sense to me if the Orthodox argued that the supreme bishop who follows in Peter’s footsteps was from somewhere other than Rome. To say they were all equals does not. There is no evidence that Christ saw Peter the same way as he saw the others. And the “keys” suggests something much more than just being first. So if the Bishop of Rome wasn’t the successor of Peter (the leader of the apostles), who was?

It depends on what you mean by equal.

When we say it we mean they are all peers. It would be impossible to argue that they are all or were all of equal responsibility and prestige. Without a doubt the Bishop of Rome has historically had greater responsibility and prestige than any other bishop.
But at the end of the day, as we see it, the Bishop of Rome is still a peer to the other bishops, and not above them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The book I recommended is very interesting and it seems pretty honest with the Primacy of St. Peter. Contrary to what most Orthodox will admit today, there does seem (I’m halfway through the book) an elevated authority on the Pope early on in the Church. But this is not something that is borne from Matthew’s account of Jesus handing the keys to the kingdom to St. Peter. The Pope’s primacy and St. Peter’s primacy are two different things. There has been no evidence that St. Peter, or any Apostle, settled in a place after leaving Jerusalem to become the bishop of the local Church. St. Peter was never the bishop of Rome as he was never the bishop of Antioch. The Apostles had universal authority over the Church and they moved around, either teaching to the other Churches or establishing new ones.

The book dispels any Catholic notion of Supremacy and universal jurisdiction, but also tells the Orthodox that their efforts of belittling the Pope’s authority is more borne out of polemics rather than actual Apostolic tradition.

Matthew’s account also was never seen as any indication of Papal authority from the early Church. Each Church (local Church) is seen as the fullness of God’s kingdom on earth, not a small part of the entire Church. Thus every bishop is seen as the inheritor of the keys to the kingdom for their particular Church. But also this is dependent upon the faith of the bishop. A bishop who has lost the faith has lost the keys, just as St. Peter lost they keys when he fell (during the Passion) and regained them when he repented. This is where the Pope of Rome is today from the viewpoint of the Orthodox. He has fell into heterodoxy and does not possess anything until he returns to orthodoxy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

AS others have stated I believe it is the difference between the primacy (first among equals) vs supremacy of the Pope. I honestly do not understand the thniking that all of the apostles were equals. Clearly one of them (Peter) was set apart via the “keys”.

It would make more sense to me if the Orthodox argued that the supreme bishop who follows in Peter’s footsteps was from somewhere other than Rome. To say they were all equals does not. There is no evidence that Christ saw Peter the same way as he saw the others. And the “keys” suggests something much more than just being first. So if the Bishop of Rome wasn’t the successor of Peter (the leader of the apostles), who was?

There is no clear evidence that anyone was given St. Peter’s authority. He appointed many bishops during his time including St. James in Jerusalem. Wouldn’t you think someone who is “the Lord’s brother” and leader of the Church of Jerusalem be the one to hold St. Peter’s authority had he passed it on?

 

[TrueLight]

A bishop who has lost the faith has lost the keys, just as St. Peter lost they keys when he fell (during the Passion) and regained them when he repented.

I never heard this before.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I never heard this before.

The folly of assigning the keys to one person after Peter today is that if this person falls into heresy (such as Honorius), then you just cut off the head from the body. St. Peter received the keys from Christ after his confession that Christ is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God. Any bishop who makes the same confession receives the same keys and any bishop who professes heresy do not possess they keys (or have it taken away from them).

The keys as seen as keys to authority and power is a later interpretation. They keys as the ones that opens the doors to the Kingdom of God is the much earlier understanding of this passage.

 

[TrueLight]

The folly of assigning the keys to one person after Peter today is that if this person falls into heresy (such as Honorius), then you just cut off the head from the body. St. Peter received the keys from Christ after his confession that Christ is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God. Any bishop who makes the same confession receives the same keys and any bishop who professes heresy do not possess they keys (or have it taken away from them).

The keys as seen as keys to authority and power is a later interpretation. They keys as the ones that opens the doors to the Kingdom of God is the much earlier understanding of this passage.

Is this Orthodox belief?

If it is Catholic, sources please.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is this Orthodox belief?

If it is Catholic, sources please.

You bought the book, right? Its in Chapter 3

 

[TrueLight]

You bought the book, right? Its in Chapter 3

I bought The Early Papacy.

 

[LionHeart777]

The folly of assigning the keys to one person after Peter today is that if this person falls into heresy (such as Honorius), then you just cut off the head from the body. St. Peter received the keys from Christ after his confession that Christ is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God. Any bishop who makes the same confession receives the same keys and any bishop who professes heresy do not possess they keys (or have it taken away from them).

The keys as seen as keys to authority and power is a later interpretation. They keys as the ones that opens the doors to the Kingdom of God is the much earlier understanding of this passage.

But aren’t the keys in and of themselves symbolic of authority–especially in ancient Near Eastern cultures (cf. Isaiah 22:22*)?

Also, “binding” and “loosing” denote authority, right?

*note: I am not going into the argument in toto here on how this passage points to the Catholic position on the Papacy, rather just pointing out here that keys are symbolic of authority as can be seen from this passage.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But aren’t the keys in and of themselves symbolic of authority–especially in ancient Near Eastern cultures (cf. Isaiah 22:22*)?

But the bishop is a position of authority. He is the overseer of each Church. Its just not in the type of authority that Rome believes it to be. I should have said it that way, it is by no means a special authority above other bishops.

If you examine Acts, St. Peter never acted alone. And in fact in the Council of Jerusalem which happened after the Apostles left Jerusalem and handed the Church of Jerusalem over to St. James, St. James had the authority, not St. Peter. In the Greek text of Acts, St. James was quoted using an emphatic “I” when making the pronouncement. This doesn’t mean he’s speaking in behalf of St. Peter, he was speaking under his own authority as bishop of Jerusalem.

*note: I am not going into the argument in toto here on how this passage is proof of the Papacy, rather just pointing out here that keys are symbolic of authority as can be seen from this Passage.

No doubt. But if you get the keys of the city from the Mayor, does that make you deputy Mayor? Vice Mayor? Councilor? Keys have more symbolism than just authority and power. And even authority and power has different levels.

 

[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.

I think that this perspective misses the mark.

All bishops are accountable to each other, and of course are accountable before God. The actions of Cerularius were unjust - especially since they went far beyond the vengeful closure of Latin parishes, and included fomenting acts of desecration against the Blessed Sacrament in the Latin churches.

Does anyone support this action?

The question, then becomes: how to deal with leaders who run off the tracks. I suppose there has always been some economy, rather than strict legalism, in such matters. In fact, I would say that there still is; examples are easy to find.

That shocking desecration was the spark that led to the calling out by the Pope of Rome - who denied the authority of the EP to decide on the validity of the sacraments of the Roman church - and the eventual presence of the legates in Constantinople. They had every right to be there; they were welcomed by the Emperor.

It’s a more intricate story than is typically given.

 

[LionHeart777]

But the bishop is a position of authority. He is the overseer of each Church. Its just not in the type of authority that Rome believes it to be. I should have said it that way, it is by no means a special authority above other bishops.

If you examine Acts, St. Peter never acted alone. And in fact in the Council of Jerusalem which happened after the Apostles left Jerusalem and handed the Church of Jerusalem over to St. James, St. James had the authority, not St. Peter. In the Greek text of Acts, St. James was quoted using an emphatic “I” when making the pronouncement. This doesn’t mean he’s speaking in behalf of St. Peter, he was speaking under his own authority as bishop of Jerusalem.

No doubt. But if you get the keys of the city from the Mayor, does that make you deputy Mayor? Vice Mayor? Councilor? Keys have more symbolism than just authority and power. And even authority and power has different levels.

ok, we can agree that the keys denote authority, I was latching on to your words: “The keys as seen as keys to authority and power is a later interpretation.”

The type of authority, etc. I suppose is a longer conversation. The keys from the city is perhaps not the best example as that doesn’t really mean anything as I understand it today–it’s just a nice gesture. But say in Isaiah 22, the one given the keys acted in behalf of the King, they were the Prime Minister who wielded the King’s authority in his absence (much like in the Egyptian Kingdom.) {I’m kind of regurgitating Ray in “Upon This Rock” here.}

Re: Acts 15, St. Peter acted collegially yes (as I believe the Pope tries to do today.) I agree with with Haydock’s Bible Commentary on this passage that St. James “join[ed] [his] judgment with Peter’s]” .

 

[ConstantineTG]

ok, we can agree that the keys denote authority, I was latching on to your words: “The keys as seen as keys to authority and power is a later interpretation.”

I have to go through the chapter I am reading right now. But it seems that the early teachings on the significance of they keys point to the ability to open up the Kingdom of God on earth than any type of authority.

The type of authority, etc. I suppose is a longer conversation. The keys from the city is perhaps not the best example as that doesn’t really mean anything as I understand it today–it’s just a nice gesture. But say in Isaiah 22, the one given the keys acted in behalf of the King, they were the Prime Minister who wielded the King’s authority in his absence (much like in the Egyptian Kingdom.) {I’m kind of regurgitating Ray in “Upon This Rock” here.}

I’m just giving the example that keys doesn’t always denote authority. The keys given to someone by the Mayor symbolizes one being a special person that they can enter the city whenever they please, and they have access to everything and everyone in the city. Isn’t this the same thing that is given to one who professes, like Peter, that Christ is the Messiah?

Another interpretation of the keys by early teachers in the Church is that this keys are given to anyone who professes the same faith as Peter did (that Christ is the Son of God).

Re: Acts 15, St. Peter acted collegially yes (as I believe the Pope tries to do today.) I agree with with Haydock’s Bible Commentary on this passage that St. James “join[ed] [his] judgment with Peter’s]” .

The Greek was emphatic that James say “I”. I don’t read Greek so I will trust what the book tells me.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The emphatic personal pronoun is a standard understanding of the use of personal pronouns in Koine Greek. The way verbs are conjugated in Greek makes the personal pronoun unnecessary, so it is usually omitted in regular speech, usually being saved for emphasis. It is what marks the difference between the “I AM statements” made by Jesus and other regular statements where he or other persons might be saying “I am” but in a less emphatic manner without the personal pronoun “ego”.

 

[LionHeart777]

I have to go through the chapter I am reading right now. But it seems that the early teachings on the significance of they keys point to the ability to open up the Kingdom of God on earth than any type of authority.

I’m just giving the example that keys doesn’t always denote authority. The keys given to someone by the Mayor symbolizes one being a special person that they can enter the city whenever they please, and they have access to everything and everyone in the city. Isn’t this the same thing that is given to one who professes, like Peter, that Christ is the Messiah?

Another interpretation of the keys by early teachers in the Church is that this keys are given to anyone who professes the same faith as Peter did (that Christ is the Son of God).

The Greek was emphatic that James say “I”. I don’t read Greek so I will trust what the book tells me.

Man, I’m not quite sure how you split the quotes up…

I guess I’d have to look at the quotes your book references. One thing comes to mind though, I have heard that there are early references from one or more Fathers to the passage in Revelation which many Protestants use to teach a 1,000 year Millennial reign of Christ on earth in the end times, and that these Fathers (I think more than 1) interpreted the verse or verses that way (sorry I can try and verify.) Yet the Catholic Church does not and I think Orthodox Christians do not either.

Also, it doesn’t mean that they would or did deny the primary Catholic interpretation of the text.

Hmm. I thought we agreed that the keys denoted authority though… in any event I shall fall back on Isaiah 22:22 as support, and I will look for a source on keys, authority, and ANE culture perhaps.

Re: St. James, I agree that he said “I judge” --that’s what the the text says. And about it being emphatic, that could be, I’m no Greek scholar either. I would argue that this does not that his “I judge” was judgment with Peter."

I want to ask a question. According to your book which I believe you say has a higher Petrine view than say some other Orthodox sources:

1. What is the relation of St. Peter to the other Apostles? (in a nutshell let’s say)

---

 

[ConstantineTG]

Man, I’m not quite sure how you split the quotes up…

I guess I’d have to look at the quotes your book references. One thing comes to mind though, I have heard that there are early references from one or more Fathers to the passage in Revelation which many Protestants use to teach a 1,000 year Millennial reign of Christ on earth in the end times, and that these Fathers (I think more than 1) interpreted the verse or verses that way (sorry I can try and verify.) Yet the Catholic Church does not and I think Orthodox Christians do not either.

It references other books and studies. I usually don’t bother reading the footnotes but this book is very generous with its sources.

Also, it doesn’t mean that they would or did deny the primary Catholic interpretation of the text.

They can’t deny an interpolation that did not exist in the early Church.

Hmm. I thought we agreed that the keys denoted authority though… in any event I shall fall back on Isaiah 22:22 as support, and I will look for a source on keys, authority, and ANE culture perhaps.

Re: St. James, I agree that he said “I judge” --that’s what the the text says. And about it being emphatic, that could be, I’m no Greek scholar either. I would argue that this does not that his “I judge” was judgment with Peter."

I said that authority is one of the many things the keys can allude to. More often than not, keys allude to access. But access to what? We can make a long list here. It could be authority, it could be God’s mercy, it could be as the book shows from its sources, access to the Kingdom of God itself.

I want to ask a question. According to your book which I believe you say has a higher Petrine view than say some other Orthodox sources:

1. What is the relation of St. Peter to the other Apostles? (in a nutshell let’s say)

---

Each chapter is a different writer, which is what makes this book awesome. You get different viewpoints and different studies, not just one guy rambling on an on with his own polemics. Which is why I agreed to buy this book and so far I am loving it.

As for Peter, 2 of the 3 writers so far that I have read points to Peter having a higher authority than the Apostles. However, that doesn’t point to Peter being the “boss” of the Apostles. Also they have so far (of my reading) been unanimous in pointing out that even if Peter possessed something extraordinary among the Apostles, this was never passed to any bishop. John Meyendorff even admits the Pope receiving special position and authority, but not from Peter but from a council. So the Pope’s authority is not Apostolic but rather conciliar. And such authority is not what Rome makes it to be today.