What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[LionHeart777]

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.

Well, I won’t comment on that last part but I think that this primacy of Peter is a good point to dialogue from. What seems to be left when that is agreed upon is to talk about that primacy of Peter; maybe like what it is? what it’s implications are today? things of this nature, and I assume they are being addressed by Catholic and Orthodox Christians. That was the very minimum perhaps I was trying to point out, that a primacy of Peter exists. The implications of that deserve lots more dialogue, I was perhaps just trying to get to that point (the starting point I mentioned above that is.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

I want to make St. Vladimir Seminary press rich

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.

I have a certain way of handling my books that doesn’t make it conducive for me to type while reading from it. Plus, I am still at work taking a short break

 

[TrueLight]

I want to make St. Vladimir Seminary press rich

I have a certain way of handling my books that doesn’t make it conducive for me to type while reading from it. Plus, I am still at work taking a short break

Oh wow. What time is it where you are?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Oh wow. What time is it where you are?

Pacific Time, so its past 6pm. But don’t worry, I come in late that is why I stay late. I’ll get you the quotes when I get home, leaving work now

 

[ConstantineTG]

My sense ConstantineTG, is that this argument (the argument that Peter didn’t pass on his authority) undercuts the argument for the Episcopacy and Apostolic Succession.

Why? Peter did not only ordain one man, he ordained many men into the Episcopacy. Every bishop is an apostolic successor.

catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

Actually, if you believe that Peter did ordain a successor, then the way we elect a Pope today undercuts that because the Pope doesn’t choose his successor as how Peter supposedly did.

Exactly.

Honestly, it just makes sense to me that if Christ thought it was important enough to have one of the apostles lead/have special authority in the beginning that he would always want to have one apostle to lead the others/have special authority over the others.

But we must also be careful no to confuse successors with replacements. While bishops are Apostolic Successors, they are not Apostles. Matthias is a replacement to Judas, but after the Apostles there were no Apostles. Nobody succeeded Peter as an Apostle. In fact nobody succeeded any Apostle as Apostle. So even if Peter had special authority, why would we conclude that anyone else would have the same authority if they never had everything Peter had (Apsotleship).

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.

If you read that entire chapter, you will see that Peter isn’t talking to one person. In fact in the verse before he said “brothers and sisters”. If that verse confirms Peter appointed a successor, then you just agreed that there are female bishops who are successors to Peter, so there are female Popes. Because that is what is in the context of the passage.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Examples?

By the way, what example are you looking for? Example of how the Byzantine bishops were surprised of Rome’s assertion?

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.

But bishop = Church. If the entire Church rests upon one bishop, what if this bishop is a heretic as is Honorious?

You said:

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.

I don’t see any undercut. Popes are not selected successors by previous Popes. I don’t find any undercut here. If Peter appointed his successor and bestowed his authority on a specific successor, why are Popes elected by a college of bishops rather than a living Pope choosing a successor and bestowing what has been passed down to him? If that is how Peter did it, why have no other bishop done it that way as far as our records will show? Its a pretty important authority to just change the way it is passed on.

Well, I won’t comment on that last part but I think that this primacy of Peter is a good point to dialogue from. What seems to be left when that is agreed upon is to talk about that primacy of Peter; maybe like what it is? what it’s implications are today? things of this nature, and I assume they are being addressed by Catholic and Orthodox Christians. That was the very minimum perhaps I was trying to point out, that a primacy of Peter exists. The implications of that deserve lots more dialogue, I was perhaps just trying to get to that point (the starting point I mentioned above that is.)

I’m starting to get this feeling that the understanding of what a Church is and its ecclesiology is very different between East and West. The East sees that Churches are local Churches, each one containing the fullness of the Kingdom of God. Thus each Bishop who professes the true faith (orthodoxy) like Peter did receives the keys and authority within that Church which Christ builds upon that bishop. The Catholic Church sees one ecclesiastical Church worldwide (which is why I think they stuck with the name “Catholic”) where there is one bishop, the Pope. And all the other bishops are just subordinate bishops to the Pope. While this makes sense, it is troublesome in a way that why are other bishops called bishop? And was there ever a super-bishop such as the Pope? It is not stated in Scripture or any early source that such a position exists outside of bishops. Also the trouble this brings is that the other bishops are relegated to elders, or presbyters. The word “episcopate” then becomes misleading.

 

[LionHeart777]

By the way, what example are you looking for? Example of how the Byzantine bishops were surprised of Rome’s assertion?

But bishop = Church. If the entire Church rests upon one bishop, what if this bishop is a heretic as is Honorious?

I don’t see any undercut. Popes are not selected successors by previous Popes. I don’t find any undercut here. If Peter appointed his successor and bestowed his authority on a specific successor, why are Popes elected by a college of bishops rather than a living Pope choosing a successor and bestowing what has been passed down to him? If that is how Peter did it, why have no other bishop done it that way as far as our records will show? Its a pretty important authority to just change the way it is passed on.

I’m starting to get this feeling that the understanding of what a Church is and its ecclesiology is very different between East and West. The East sees that Churches are local Churches, each one containing the fullness of the Kingdom of God. Thus each Bishop who professes the true faith (orthodoxy) like Peter did receives the keys and authority within that Church which Christ builds upon that bishop. The Catholic Church sees one ecclesiastical Church worldwide (which is why I think they stuck with the name “Catholic”) where there is one bishop, the Pope. And all the other bishops are just subordinate bishops to the Pope. While this makes sense, it is troublesome in a way that why are other bishops called bishop? And was there ever a super-bishop such as the Pope? It is not stated in Scripture or any early source that such a position exists outside of bishops. Also the trouble this brings is that the other bishops are relegated to elders, or presbyters. The word “episcopate” then becomes misleading.

Re: Honorius

This situation does not touch on Papal Infallibility, and where is the “…concrete proof that Honorius was, himself, even a formal or material heretic…” ?

Re: the undercutting, I may have misunderstood you.

On the Ecclesiology:

To my understanding, not only is there a difference between Catholic and Orthodox Christians here but amongst the Orthodox themselves (as I believe some Orthodox follow the Universal model as opposed to the Eucharistic model.) For example:

The systems can all be reduced to two fundamental types: Universal Ecclesiology and Eucharistic Ecclesiology. The universal sort is now pre dominant, especially in Catholic doctrine. The Orthodox Church has not clearly defined her attitudes, but our “school” teaching follows Catholic doctrine and accepts universal ecclesiology as an axiom.

Source: orthodox-christianity.com/2012/06/universal-ecclesiology-or-eucharistic-ecclesiology/

Yet there are Orthodox Christians who argue for Eucharistic Ecclesiology.

Here is another quote I saw from the book I believe you are reading:

The quotations from him and Fr. Alexander Schmemann were taken from an Orthodox source titled The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (edited by JohnMeyendorff):

As we study the problem of primacy in general, and especially the primacy of Rome, we must not be ruled by polemical motives: the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government. And although we have a doctrine concerning Ecumenical Councils as organs of government in the Church, we shall see presently that our doctrine is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy…

Source: matt1618.freeyellow.com/papalprimacy.html

You said:

“* The Catholic Church sees one ecclesiastical Church worldwide (which is why I think they stuck with the name “Catholic”) where there is one bishop, the Pope. *”

I think you are putting word’s in the CC’s mouth here so to speak. The Church does not teach this.

Also, are some Bishops subordinate to others in Orthodoxy?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Re: Honorius

This situation does not touch on Papal Infallibility, and where is the “…concrete proof that Honorius was, himself, even a formal or material heretic…” ?

Where is concrete proof? Here… ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.xiii.html

The canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council affirms the anathema on Honorius by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Re: the undercutting, I may have misunderstood you.

On the Ecclesiology:

To my understanding, not only is there a difference between Catholic and Orthodox Christians here but amongst the Orthodox themselves (as I believe some Orthodox follow the Universal model as opposed to the Eucharistic model.) For example:

Source: orthodox-christianity.com/2012/06/universal-ecclesiology-or-eucharistic-ecclesiology/

The problem with the Universal Ecclesiology, as I noted, undermines the role of other bishops. Also if there is one super-bishop that Peter appointed as successor which is the Pope, why does the Pope NOT appoint his successor as Peter did?

Yet there are Orthodox Christians who argue for Eucharistic Ecclesiology.

Who can blame them? It has been the model of Church they have been operating on since the beginning.

Here is another quote I saw from the book I believe you are reading:

Source: matt1618.freeyellow.com/papalprimacy.html

No doubt! Theme of the book was never to deny Primacy. The problem any Orthodox have with the Catholic Church is the definition of Primacy. As the book has pointed out, Orthodox theologians and scholars throughout time have professed primacy in Peter and even with Rome. But this primacy is not what Rome has clamored for, and certainly not what Vatican I dogmatized.

You said:

“* The Catholic Church sees one ecclesiastical Church worldwide (which is why I think they stuck with the name “Catholic”) where there is one bishop, the Pope. *”

I think you are putting word’s in the CC’s mouth here so to speak. The Church does not teach this.

But that is the Universal Ecclesiology. Yes, the Church still teaches that the bishops have their own ordinary jurisdiction and authority. But that is paralleled by the Pope. The Pope doesn’t take away from the local Bishop, but that doesn’t mean the Pope doesn’t have the same authority. He does. The only place you will see this is with a local bishop and a parish priest, where the bishop has as much authority in the parish as the parish priest. Right now the bishops seem to be parish priests of the Pope, the Pope having universal jurisdiction (as a bishop is to a diocese) while the priests have authority within their jurisdiction (as a parish priest is to his parish).

Also, are some Bishops subordinate to others in Orthodoxy?

I’m not Orthodox so I won’t be able to answer that directly. But what I can see in the Eastern Catholic Church should follow the Orthodox ecclesiastical model. Our bishops always meet in a synod. Our patriarch doesn’t do anything unilaterally. He doesn’t make proclamations without the synod. In fact, he is powerless without the synod. Even in communion with Rome, we do not follow the Roman ecclesiology. The Metropolitan isn’t the boss of my bishop as much as the Patriarch isn’t the boss of the Metropolitan. Those are roles they have for the Church and it doesn’t grant them any authority over the other bishops.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Re: Honorius

This situation does not touch on Papal Infallibility, and where is the “…concrete proof that Honorius was, himself, even a formal or material heretic…” ?

That apologist misses the mark. Regardless of what Honorius’ personal beliefs were or were not, he suppressed the teaching of the right faith, which is why the sixth ecumenical council anathematized him as a heretic. When he writes “we must, as I have already said, define neither one nor two operations in the mediator between God and man,” Honorius is in fact suppressing the teaching of the correct faith that the Word of God should be recognized in two operations after the incarnation. Similarly, when he uses this quote as evidence to attempt to show Honorius’ doctrinal orthodoxy, he in fact shows a misunderstanding of what issue was at stake, “You must confess, with us, one Christ our Lord, operating in either nature, divine or human actions.” This statement was vague enough so as to be acceptable to both the monergists and those who held to the Orthodox faith. This is because all parties could agree that there is one hypostasis (Jesus Christ, the Word of God the Father), which energizes according to either nature (the attempt to differentiate this statement from Sergius’ attempt to suppress both formulae of one and two energies by pointing out Honorius’ use of ‘or’ instead of ‘and’ is a red herring). What the Monergists wished to deny was the orthodox belief that the faculties of the human nature were appropriated by the one hypostasis in full, something which could be done with the doctrine that there is one theandric energy, but not with the doctrine of two energies (it is worth noting that the doctrine of theandric energy, like the doctrine of ‘one incarnate nature of the Word of God the Father’ is not heretical per se, but is only open to heretical interpretation).

 

[CarloMagnus]

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.

I believe it should stay this way.

-Karl

 

[Lucky7]

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.

So, we are going to pick apart Bible quotes now? More and more this kind of arguing sounds like Protestantism. Early Church Fathers/Tradition have/has pointed to Peter as above the others. There is much evidence in the early Church that what the Roman Catholic CHurch teaches is true. It is not up to me to interpret Bible verses the way I see fit.

 

[Hesychios]

So, we are going to pick apart Bible quotes now? More and more this kind of arguing sounds like Protestantism. Early Church Fathers/Tradition have/has pointed to Peter as above the others. There is much evidence in the early Church that what the Roman Catholic CHurch teaches is true. It is not up to me to interpret Bible verses the way I see fit.

There is no picking apart.

You brought up the keys, so I put them in their context.

It is Holy Orthodoxy which conforms to the faith of Peter, and it is Peter’s faith which matters. Peter and Paul and the other Apostles have many successors, but it is not which city they are in which makes them bishops. They must remain faithful to neither add nor to subtract from the Apostolic faith they have received from the Apostles. Barring that they are not good teachers.

It is the Roman Catholic church, which has changed doctrine since the first millenium. Any differences between Holy Orthodoxy and your church are completely due to changes your church has made. So don’t go on thinking we are in error, Orthodoxy is your past, Orthodoxy is your origin. If Orthodoxy is wrong today, then the roots of your church are wrong.

 

[RKO]

The issue I’m struggling with is that by claiming supremacy, the Popes discount or discredit the authority of the other 11 apostles. While Peter may have had primacy over the other apostles, I don’t see any evidence that he claimed supremacy over them. Nor am I aware of jesus telling peter he was supreme.

And, this is just speculation on my part, but it seems to me that given the success in the Eastern Church in maintaining (pretty much) communion for 2000 years, A collegial union of the Christian Church with the pope as first among equals could make a stronger, dare I say holier, Church for everyone. And when I say “holier” I mean over the expanse of time. Obviously that will ebb and flow given that fallen man is in charge of the Church Militant.

 

[rinnie]

Why? Peter did not only ordain one man, he ordained many men into the Episcopacy. Every bishop is an apostolic successor.

catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

Actually, if you believe that Peter did ordain a successor, then the way we elect a Pope today undercuts that because the Pope doesn’t choose his successor as how Peter supposedly did.

But we must also be careful no to confuse successors with replacements. While bishops are Apostolic Successors, they are not Apostles. Matthias is a replacement to Judas, but after the Apostles there were no Apostles. Nobody succeeded Peter as an Apostle. In fact nobody succeeded any Apostle as Apostle. So even if Peter had special authority, why would we conclude that anyone else would have the same authority if they never had everything Peter had (Apsotleship).

If you read that entire chapter, you will see that Peter isn’t talking to one person. In fact in the verse before he said “brothers and sisters”. If that verse confirms Peter appointed a successor, then you just agreed that there are female bishops who are successors to Peter, so there are female Popes. Because that is what is in the context of the passage.

But I don’t see who disagrees with that. Every single bishop who is ordained is a successor.

But show me where Peter gave every single Bishop the keys to the kingdom?

 

[rinnie]

The issue I’m struggling with is that by claiming supremacy, the Popes discount or discredit the authority of the other 11 apostles. While Peter may have had primacy over the other apostles, I don’t see any evidence that he claimed supremacy over them. Nor am I aware of jesus telling peter he was supreme.

And, this is just speculation on my part, but it seems to me that given the success in the Eastern Church in maintaining (pretty much) communion for 2000 years, A collegial union of the Christian Church with the pope as first among equals could make a stronger, dare I say holier, Church for everyone. And when I say “holier” I mean over the expanse of time. Obviously that will ebb and flow given that fallen man is in charge of the Church Militant.

You don’t. Then what do you think of this?

Avts 15 My brothers he said you know PERFECTLY WELL that in the early days GOD made his CHOICE among you, the gentile were to learn the good news from ME and so become believers.

Now what choice do you believe he was talking about? Are we not the gentiles, And is the good news not to come through the mouth of Peter?

Why did they let Peter make the decision after that. Why did they not buck him?

 

[RKO]

was he claiming supremacy (and infallibity) as opposed to primacy over the 12? or was that a later interpretation of Acts and other verses?

For the record, I do NOT claim to know the answer. I have been catholic all my life, but find myself questioning some of these issues.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But I don’t see who disagrees with that. Every single bishop who is ordained is a successor.

But show me where Peter gave every single Bishop the keys to the kingdom?

Show me where Peter gave the keys to one.

 

[RKO]

*Originally Posted by rinnie
But I don’t see who disagrees with that. Every single bishop who is ordained is a successor.

But show me where Peter gave every single Bishop the keys to the kingdom? *

PLEASE take this as a question and NOT an accusation: Is it truly Catholic (in the universal sense) for one Bishop to virtually eliminate the collegiality of all Bishops by claiming supremacy over them?

Or maybe it truly is what Jesus wanted. I truly am confused…

 

[ConstantineTG]

*Originally Posted by rinnie
But I don’t see who disagrees with that. Every single bishop who is ordained is a successor.

But show me where Peter gave every single Bishop the keys to the kingdom? *

PLEASE take this as a question and NOT an accusation: Is it truly Catholic (in the universal sense) for one Bishop to virtually eliminate the collegiality of all Bishops by claiming supremacy over them?

Or maybe it truly is what Jesus wanted. I truly am confused…

Well, it is Catholic or Universal. Because there is one Church for the entire world led by one bishop. I don’t mind this model at all, but let us not call the other bishops as bishops, it is a bit misleading if there is only one real bishop at the top.

If we are worried about succession and ordination, I have learned that priest can be given the power to ordain. What is given in their ordination has to be changed, but it is indeed possible if that is the will of the bishops. The extent of what a priest and deacon can or cannot do rests on the bishops and the words and intent of ordination.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Well, it is Catholic or Universal. Because there is one Church for the entire world led by one bishop. I don’t mind this model at all, but let us not call the other bishops as bishops, it is a bit misleading if there is only one real bishop at the top.

Are you saying that the Pope is the only bishop of the Church?