What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[Lucky7]

You can imagine or invent any scenario you wish, but the fact remains that any bishop or diocese that adopts another theology is out of communion.

That’s a fact.

That’s why you are out of communion.

No, my friend, you are out of communion.

 

[brumano]

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?

The letters of St. Peter exude his authoritative place at the head of the church, he did not make himself bishop Christ did. In 2 Ptr. ch.1vs-12-15. 15’s crucial to successorship; I shall also be very diligent to enable you always to remember these things after my departure. v16 thru to the end of ch 1 means it must be a man to follow after him and 20 and 21 are infallible teachings, to that affect.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ehm, alright, if that’s what you want you’re claiming then fine, i’ll answer from personal expirience, since i’ve started school, from the early begining we were forced to take ‘‘religion classes’’, well not really religion classes, just classes where we only learnt about the orthodox faith, i do agree that may not be the only reason to why the schism happened however it is ONE of the main reasons, they do not believe the pope is a saint, but orthodox christians do have a patriarche whom they equal just as a servant of god, so if you ask an orthodox who studied the religion in depth, he’ll tell you the worst things about the pope, how the papic church committed the worst crimes in history etc etc, so please hesychios, you’re trying to argue with someone who has Byzantine roots, it shows the lack of your history knowledge, ‘‘some believe what they want to believe’’, well isn’t that ironic, not to mention that’s arrogant of you to say since i’m not even a christian , cheers lad.

Most modern Greeks can’t even tell their Byzantine Christian heritage apart from their Pagan Hellenistic heritage (much like some Italians whose love for Julius Caesar and imperial Rome is about up there with their love for Church). Your word is worth nothing, since you are wrong. Even a cursory glance at the Orthodox menaion for any month would show that multiple bishops of Rome from the first millennium are on the calendar, remembered as saints throughout the year, including every bishop of Rome who was martyred for the Orthodox faith (St. Stephen, for example), those who were tortured for their faith (like St. Martin, who along with St. Maximus the confessor was persecuted by the Eastern Roman Emperor for holding the Orthodox faith), and others who were simply great hierarchs of considerable doctrinal orthodoxy (Ss. Leo and Agatho, for example). By your own admission, you are not Christian, and you frankly show it by knowing nothing about the Orthodox faith, which you arrogantly presume to think you know because you are Greek.

 

[rinnie]

Think of this like a family.

Christ is the father.

You have an older brother, whom you respect enormously. He is a great source of advice and help. Of course during a crises (like a death in the family, or some such thing). He could take the lead in bringing the family together.

At family gatherings, he could sit at the head of the table (this might be if Dad is unavailable) and he might be asked to give the blessing.

But he does not make decisions for everyone alse in the family.

He will not tell you who to marry, or where to buy a house, or what school you should send your kids to. Ultimately, your household is your own, and although you respect his opinion and you would contact him for help sometimes (and he you), he does not run your home and you do not run his home. That would be meddling.

The church is a family, this metaphor has been employed to describe it since the beginning…

I see, But Christ did not do it that way. He never said that Peter was the Father. He said Peter was the leader of the Sheep. He told Peter to lead the sheep, tend the sheep.

He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.

So in a way he did give Peter not only the seat at the family table, he told him to feed the family, tend to the family. By giving him the keys to the kingdom he was told to make the decisions for the family.

I have asked numerous times where did Christ tell ALL of the Apostles they have the keys to the kingdom. It was never given.

Christ said plain as day you are Peter and to YOU I give the keys to the kingdom. Why would he say that if they all have them?

 

[Nicea325]

The Orthodox view towards the Pope of Rome is what it has always been. He was always or at least very soon considered to be the first among equals. This ranking was based on the historical fact that Rome was the Imperial city at the time and because of the deaths of the Ss Peter and Paul in the city.

The bishop of Rome (pope) was NEVER believed to have supremacy over the other Churches or over all Christians. This is supported by many of the Church fathers and the history of the early councils. The early Church was and the Church today continues to be conciliar.

So the Orthodox Church does not reject Papal primacy, but Papal supremacy, and rightly so.

That is not true. The East imposed such a position at a later date,that the Bishop of Rome ranking was strictly due to the imperial capital. It was never based on Rome’s secular position or status. Precisely why the pope rejected such a position.

 

[Nicea325]

You can imagine or invent any scenario you wish, but the fact remains that any bishop or diocese that adopts another theology is out of communion.

That’s a fact.

That’s why you are out of communion.

Out of communion from whom? God? Not even close!

 

[pablope]

You can imagine or invent any scenario you wish, but the fact remains that any bishop or diocese that adopts another theology is out of communion.

**That’s a fact. **

That’s why you are out of communion.

I would say what is a fact is…1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

That founded on disobedience is out of communion…and continuing to be arrogant…is further out of communion…

 

[TrueLight]

You can imagine or invent any scenario you wish, but the fact remains that any bishop or diocese that adopts another theology is out of communion.

That’s a fact.

That’s why you are out of communion.

I know Lucky is annoying you, but we are not the ones out of communion, my friend.

St Ambrose: “Where Peter is, there is the Church”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I know Lucky is annoying you, but we are not the ones out of communion, my friend.

St Ambrose: “Where Peter is, there is the Church”.

From the Orthodox standpoint, every bishop that professes the faith of Peter is Peter. And every bishop who doesn’t, is not.

Would you say that Pope Honorius is Peter?

 

[LionHeart777]

From the Orthodox standpoint, every bishop that professes the faith of Peter is Peter. And every bishop who doesn’t, is not.

Would you say that Pope Honorius is Peter?

I’ll chime in if that’s ok too?

From the Catholic (and maybe Orthodox point of view too) he was a successor of St. Peter, so yes, I think it is correct to say that he was Peter in that sense.

But if you would, define "the faith of Peter " according to the Orthodox?

 

[Hesychios]

I see, But Christ did not do it that way. He never said that Peter was the Father. He said Peter was the leader of the Sheep. He told Peter to lead the sheep, tend the sheep

You understand, of course, that this was part of Christ forgiving Peter for abandoning him.

Christ did not say ‘you alone’ feed my sheep. He was restoring Saint Peter and telling him to get off the beach feeling sorry for himself and back to work.

He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.

In scripture, Christ does not say “I will give to thee alone the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. He says “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”. Many keys, and he does not say Peter alone is to receive them. Matt 16:19

Surely, if Jesus had intended Peter alone to have the keys, Matthew could have stated this right at this point, but he does not, something else is going on here, the narrative is not finished.

We have to deal with the literature as written. The power of the keys is the power to bind and loose (which the Papacy does try to monopolize at times) clearly stated by Christ in the same verse.

After Jesus acknowledged Peter’s faith and having promised Saint Peter the keys, Jesus Christ shocks us by declaring “Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.” He is actually calling Peter Satan. Matt 16:23

Later Jesus is speaking to all of the Apostles. They come to him as this passage explains “At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven?” Hmmm

Jesus launches into a long explanation of how the humility of a child is required of them all, and that they through their sin should not cause the loss of even one innocent person and they will be answerable for their souls. “your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.” He is telling them how to be bishops in this whole account which last several verses. Then he says to them all “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” The risen Lord has commanded them.

Later is this interesting remark by the Lord to this same gathering “Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.” Interesting.

Your argument is like a man of whom it is written had handed the keys of his car to someone, and in a later passage we find that the man has allowed several others to drive his car as well, but there is no mention of him handing them the keys.

 

[TrueLight]

From the Orthodox standpoint, every bishop that professes the faith of Peter is Peter. And every bishop who doesn’t, is not.

Would you say that Pope Honorius is Peter?

I’m obviously not speaking from an Orthodox perspective and I don’t expect Hesychios to speak from a Catholic perspective either. The Catholic Church is not out of communion with the Orthodox. You may disagree.

Since I’m not a sedevacantist, I don’t have the luxury of saying which Popes were Popes and which weren’t, whether I personally believe with everything that happens during their pontificate.

 

[TrueLight]

You understand, of course, that this was part of Christ forgiving Peter for abandoning him.

Christ did not say ‘you alone’ feed my sheep. He was restoring Saint Peter and telling him to get off the beach feeling sorry for himself and back to work.

In scripture, Christ does not say “I will give to thee alone the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. He says “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”. Many keys, and he does not say Peter alone is to receive them. Matt 16:19

Surely, if Jesus had intended Peter alone to have the keys, Matthew could have stated this right at this point, but he does not, something else is going on here, the narrative is not finished.

We have to deal with the literature as written. The power of the keys is the power to bind and loose (which the Papacy does try to monopolize at times) clearly stated by Christ in the same verse.

After Jesus acknowledged Peter’s faith and having promised Saint Peter the keys, Jesus Christ shocks us by declaring “Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.” He is actually calling Peter Satan. Matt 16:23

Later Jesus is speaking to all of the Apostles. They come to him as this passage explains “At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven?” Hmmm

Jesus launches into a long explanation of how the humility of a child is required of them all, and that they through their sin should not cause the loss of even one innocent person and they will be answerable for their souls. “your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.” He is telling them how to be bishops in this whole account which last several verses. Then he says to them all “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” The risen Lord has commanded them.

Later is this interesting remark by the Lord to this same gathering “Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.” Interesting.

Your argument is like a man of whom it is written had handed the keys of his car to someone, and in a later passage we find that the man has allowed several others to drive his car as well, but there is no mention of him handing them the keys.

At what point did these debates begin over the primacy of Peter and what that means? The very, very early Church fathers apparently had no issue with it. Can you show that early Church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd Century did not see Peter as the one that the other Bishops had to defer to once he made a decision?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ll chime in if that’s ok too?

From the Catholic (and maybe Orthodox point of view too) he was a successor of St. Peter, so yes, I think it is correct to say that he was Peter in that sense.

But if you would, define "the faith of Peter " according to the Orthodox?

This is a public forum, feel free anytime

Isn’t it troubling that so much rests on such a legalistic understanding of succession? Is one a successor because he is appointed one? Peter was not handed the key because Jesus just felt like he’d make a good leader. Peter received the keys becaused he professes the Truth, and that is Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Honorius is a heretic, and thus does not profess the faith of Peter. Would you give the keys to someone who’d drive the Church into the water?

I’m obviously not speaking from an Orthodox perspective and I don’t expect Hesychios to speak from a Catholic perspective either. The Catholic Church is not out of communion with the Orthodox. You may disagree.

We don’t need to complicate it. We are out of communion with each other. It is the plain and simple fact.

Since I’m not a sedevacantist, I don’t have the luxury of saying which Popes were Popes and which weren’t, whether I personally believe with everything that happens during their pontificate.

You don’t need a theology degree for this one. A council has anathemized Pope Honorius and no council or Pope has recinded it. Rest assured you can remain a faithful Catholic when you call this one specific Pope a heretic. The Church says as much.

At what point did these debates begin over the primacy of Peter and what that means? The very, very early Church fathers apparently had no issue with it. Can you show that early Church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd Century did not see Peter as the one that the other Bishops had to defer to once he made a decision?

Definitely much later. From the Byzantine perspective, they weren’t even aware that Rome has started to interpret her primacy in a different way than the East has.

 

[LionHeart777]

You understand, of course, that this was part of Christ forgiving Peter for abandoning him.

Christ did not say ‘you alone’ feed my sheep. He was restoring Saint Peter and telling him to get off the beach feeling sorry for himself and back to work.

In scripture, Christ does not say “I will give to thee alone the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. He says “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”. Many keys, and he does not say Peter alone is to receive them. Matt 16:19

Surely, if Jesus had intended Peter alone to have the keys, Matthew could have stated this right at this point, but he does not, something else is going on here, the narrative is not finished.

We have to deal with the literature as written. The power of the keys is the power to bind and loose (which the Papacy does try to monopolize at times) clearly stated by Christ in the same verse.

After Jesus acknowledged Peter’s faith and having promised Saint Peter the keys, Jesus Christ shocks us by declaring “Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.” He is actually calling Peter Satan. Matt 16:23

Later Jesus is speaking to all of the Apostles. They come to him as this passage explains “At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven?” Hmmm

Jesus launches into a long explanation of how the humility of a child is required of them all, and that they through their sin should not cause the loss of even one innocent person and they will be answerable for their souls. “your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.” He is telling them how to be bishops in this whole account which last several verses. Then he says to them all “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” The risen Lord has commanded them.

Later is this interesting remark by the Lord to this same gathering “Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.” Interesting.

Your argument is like a man of whom it is written had handed the keys of his car to someone, and in a later passage we find that the man has allowed several others to drive his car as well, but there is no mention of him handing them the keys.

I’m going to respectfully (hopefully ) disagree with the interpretations you are giving to these Scriptures.

I would argue that you are reading a primacy out of St. John 21:17, as other Fathers saw it there (St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyprian are at least two examples, I would argue. I assume there are more.)

Although the other Apostles are given the power to “bind” and “loose” later (Mt. 18:18), that there is a difference between Mt. 16:18-19 and Mt. 18:18 is noted (at least) by Origen and I would argue St. Cyprian too.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m going to respectfully (hopefully ) disagree with the interpretations you are giving to these Scriptures.

I would argue that you are reading a primacy out of St. John 21:17, as other Fathers saw it there (St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyprian are at least two examples, I would argue. I assume there are more.)

Although the other Apostles are given the power to “bind” and “loose” later (Mt. 18:18), that there is a difference between Mt. 16:18-19 and Mt. 18:18 is noted (at least) by Origen and I would argue St. Cyprian too.

What I love about the book I am reading is that while it is a book written by the Orthodox for the Orthodox, there is an ounce of honesty in it where they admit that the Orthodox have been to anti-Papist since the Greast Schism that they would argue with polemics to the point of denying Peter had any sort of primacy. The fact is that Peter did enjoy a primacy among the Apostles, the Pope even enjoyed a primacy among all the bishops. The problem is that the Orthodox deny it and the Catholics overstate it.

 

[TrueLight]

You don’t need a theology degree for this one. A council has anathemized Pope Honorius and no council or Pope has recinded it. Rest assured you can remain a faithful Catholic when you call this one specific Pope a heretic. The Church says as much.

Okay, well, I don’t know anything about Pope Honorious so I have research to do.

Definitely much later. From the Byzantine perspective, they weren’t even aware that Rome has started to interpret her primacy in a different way than the East has.

Examples?

 

[LionHeart777]

This is a public forum, feel free anytime

Isn’t it troubling that so much rests on such a legalistic understanding of succession? Is one a successor because he is appointed one? Peter was not handed the key because Jesus just felt like he’d make a good leader. Peter received the keys becaused he professes the Truth, and that is Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Honorius is a heretic, and thus does not profess the faith of Peter. Would you give the keys to someone who’d drive the Church into the water?

Thanks I seem to be like an objector that’s following you around for the last couple days

I was going somewhere by asking for the definition, you seem to have thwarted me

Honorius did not “drive the Church into the water” … I would argue

Catholics believe that the Church cannot be driven into the water, as it is Infallible and Indefectible.

You said:

Isn’t it troubling that so much rests on such a legalistic understanding of succession?

No, as this succession is important. Similar to my comment in another thread, I think you are undercutting the argument here for the Episcopacy and Apostolic Succession.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Examples?

Will I sound like such a snob if I answer your question with, “go buy the book!” ?

 

[TrueLight]

Will I sound like such a snob if I answer your question with, “go buy the book!” ?

Well, if you make comments in the forum, you should be ready to explain them. Requiring that someone buy the book is not acceptable.

By the way, I do have my old copy of the Fathers Know Best at hand, and I am ready to type up some references.