What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[LionHeart777]

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.

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?

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

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.

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).

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.

Re: Honorius, I had linked to that article as a source and perhaps as a reference. You may not agree with it (as you didn’t Cavaradossi) but I believe it does address the point you are making.

Also, I don’t see how Honorius “drove the Church into the water” or even drove the “drove the [Roman] [c]hurch into the water.” I believe this to be impossible (that the Church will be driven into the H20) due to the fact that it is Infallible and Indefectible. I wrote a series of articles in the past as a refutation of Sedevacantism. There are a number of opinions regarding the idea of a heretical Pope and what would happen.

A little background is perhaps in order. St. Robert Bellarmine was the first to gather all of the various Theological opinions on a heretical Pope and he graded them.[3] Of the five, only two of them seem to be taken seriously now days. [4] These two opinions are as follows:

“‘God would never allow a pope to fall into heresy’” [5]
“’If he was to fall into a manifest heresy, the pope would ipso facto lose his pontificate.’” [6]

Source: examiner.com/article/will-the-real-catholic-church-please-stand-up-part-3

I believe St. Robert Bellarmine wrote extensively on this and addressed the case of Honorius. Those opinions (at least) the second one need some more explanation I believe. I dealt with the second using Canon Law and Church documents such (using mostly if not completely secondary sources.) If you feel like investigating what would happen in the theoretical 2nd opinion you could read the articles. (“Will the Real Catholic Church Please Stand Up”) *see my signature for my page

I can’t really comment on how a successor to St. Peter was appointed because I don’t know. I think maybe the Bishop of Rome filled the vacant office (the Papacy) upon the martyrdom of St. Peter as Rome is where he was Bishop last and Rome is where he was martyred.

If, as you say, “[Eucharistic Ecclesiology] has been the model of Church [the Eastern Orthodox] have been operating on since the beginning”, why is it that, as the article I cited by Nicholas Afanassieff says: “The Orthodox Church has not clearly defined her attitudes, but our ‘school’ teaching follows Catholic doctrine and accepts universal ecclesiology as an axiom.” ?

As per the Papacy and Vatican I, I think Catholic sources agree that there has been a legitimate development in the understanding of it.

About the Pope having universal jurisdiction. The Pope has more than one office as you know. I don’t see why, if a Bishop is needed in order for their to be unity on a local level, why an office wouldn’t be needed on the highest level for the same reason. I think of other institutions which God has established: In the Old Law there was a High Priest. In the family the man is head over the wife. I see it as a wise decision.

I will have to investigate the case with Patriarchs and Metropolitans Eastern Orthodox and their relationships to local Bishops.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Also, I don’t see how Honorius “drove the Church into the water” or even drove the “drove the [Roman] [c]hurch into the water.” I believe this to be impossible (that the Church will be driven into the H20) due to the fact that it is Infallible and Indefectible. I wrote a series of articles in the past as a refutation of Sedevacantism. There are a number of opinions regarding the idea of a heretical Pope and what would happen.

Well you know, there is the Patriarchal Cathedral Basilica of Saint Mark in Venice which is literally sinking into the water, although I think that has more to do with physics and less to do with heresy.

 

[rinnie]

Show me where Peter gave the keys to one.

The early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as the head.

Explain this one to me. Why was the Bishop of Rome always called on to settle matters.

THe 4th Bishop was called to settle a matter when St John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth then Rome. WHY? If they all had the same authority. Why the Bishop of Rome then.

Plus read the O.T. that is how it always was. In the N.T. Christ set up a New Israel to continue teaching until he comes again in glory.

Now tell me why is it in the early days it was always the Bishop of Rome who settled things? Beginning with Peter and continues with the Pope Today.

Where has any Bishop trumped the Pope in the history of the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[LionHeart777]

Well you know, there is the Patriarchal Cathedral Basilica of Saint Mark in Venice which is literally sinking into the water, although I think that has more to do with physics and less to do with heresy.

Stop it!

 

[ConstantineTG]

The early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as the head.

Proof?

Explain this one to me. Why was the Bishop of Rome always called on to settle matters.

Always? Below you presented one case. One case is not “always”.

THe 4th Bishop was called to settle a matter when St John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth then Rome. WHY? If they all had the same authority. Why the Bishop of Rome then.

On the other hand, where is it written that the Apostle should be the one to settle all issues? Isn’t it why they appointed bishops in the first place? And settling issues isn’t always a notion of supremacy of one bishop over the other. The First Council of Jerusalem settles a matter that was for the Church in Antioch, not Jerusalem. But the one who made a decision was St. James who is head of the Church of Jerusalem. Does this mean Antioch is subordinate to Jerusalem? Why didn’t the Bishop of Antoich settle it? Why didn’t Peter go to Antoich to settle it? He went to Jerusalem instead for the council.

Plus read the O.T. that is how it always was.

Where?

In the N.T. Christ set up a New Israel to continue teaching until he comes again in glory.

No contest here.

Now tell me why is it in the early days it was always the Bishop of Rome who settled things?

Surely you can give me more than one example if it is done always

Also, please explain why in the Ecumenical Councils that the Council still had to affirm that the Pope speaks of the true faith and that Peter spoke through the Pope. This needed affirmation by the Ecumenical Council (in the case of Pope St. Leo the Great as well as I think the 6th or 7th Ecumenical Council, I don’t have my notes now) rather than something we believe today to be inherent with the Pope (that he speaks for Peter out of his own volition).

Beginning with Peter and continues with the Pope Today.

Peter is a universal teacher, an Apostle. Paul settled a lot of issues with a lot of Churches. Where is his primacy? In fact we have more evidence that Paul was involved in more Churches than Peter.

Where has any Bishop trumped the Pope in the history of the Roman Catholic Church?

You mean besides a council condemning and anathemizing Honorius even though today it is said that no one on earth can judge the Pope?

Re: Honorius, I had linked to that article as a source and perhaps as a reference. You may not agree with it (as you didn’t Cavaradossi) but I believe it does address the point you are making.

Also, I don’t see how Honorius “drove the Church into the water” or even drove the “drove the [Roman] [c]hurch into the water.” I believe this to be impossible (that the Church will be driven into the H20) due to the fact that it is Infallible and Indefectible. I wrote a series of articles in the past as a refutation of Sedevacantism. There are a number of opinions regarding the idea of a heretical Pope and what would happen.

Of course Honorius did not. The keys are possessed only by those who profess the faith of Peter.

Source: examiner.com/article/will-the-real-catholic-church-please-stand-up-part-3

I believe St. Robert Bellarmine wrote extensively on this and addressed the case of Honorius. Those opinions (at least) the second one need some more explanation I believe. I dealt with the second using Canon Law and Church documents such (using mostly if not completely secondary sources.) If you feel like investigating what would happen in the theoretical 2nd opinion you could read the articles. (“Will the Real Catholic Church Please Stand Up”) *see my signature for my page

I don’t want to turn this into a case study of Honorius. I am just making a point that the office of Peter is assumed the same way Peter assumed it, by professing the faith, and not something that is given to a particular person regardless.

I can’t really comment on how a successor to St. Peter was appointed because I don’t know. I think maybe the Bishop of Rome filled the vacant office (the Papacy) upon the martyrdom of St. Peter as Rome is where he was Bishop last and Rome is where he was martyred.

There isn’t even solid evidence that Peter occupied the episcopacy in Rome. None of the Apostles held an episcopal office. The Apostolic choir was above the episcopate. It is even demeaning to Peter to be bishop of Rome as he is Apostle of the entire Church.

And given that we do not have solid evidence one way or another, this just means the Orthodox claim to Peter’s primacy is as valid as the Catholic claim.

If, as you say, “[Eucharistic Ecclesiology] has been the model of Church [the Eastern Orthodox] have been operating on since the beginning”, why is it that, as the article I cited by Nicholas Afanassieff says: “The Orthodox Church has not clearly defined her attitudes, but our ‘school’ teaching follows Catholic doctrine and accepts universal ecclesiology as an axiom.” ?

But the clear evidence is that the Eucharistic Ecclesiology existed way before the universal. The Eucharistic is more “traditional”, if you want to put it that way. I can put forth similar quotes from The Primacy of Peter later today when I get home. I just went through this section last night.

As per the Papacy and Vatican I, I think Catholic sources agree that there has been a legitimate development in the understanding of it.

Which is another source of friction for both sides as how much development is allowed that you turned one thing into a completely different thing. There are really only two concerns I have on Pastor Aeternus. One is the universal ordinary jurisdiction which essentially places two bishops in every Church. The other is that my salvation is tied to believing in the office of the Pope.

About the Pope having universal jurisdiction. The Pope has more than one office as you know. I don’t see why, if a Bishop is needed in order for their to be unity on a local level, why an office wouldn’t be needed on the highest level for the same reason. I think of other institutions which God has established: In the Old Law there was a High Priest. In the family the man is head over the wife. I see it as a wise decision.

The bishop is more than a point of unity, they are the embodiment of the local Church. If the Pope and the local Ordinary has the same authority in the same diocese, then there are two bodies, not one.

I will have to investigate the case with Patriarchs and Metropolitans Eastern Orthodox and their relationships to local Bishops.

The recent events in the OCA would be a good exercise for this.

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

We are discussing Universal ecclesiology vs. Eucharistic ecclesiology

 

[Lucky7]

Proof?

Here’s a couple:

*Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

Optatus

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]). *

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here’s a couple:

*Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

Optatus

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]). *

Cyprian doesn’t mention anything about Peter’s chair being in Rome though. I have a bunch of Cyprian quotes when I get home later today

 

[Lucky7]

Cyprian doesn’t mention anything about Peter’s chair being in Rome though. I have a bunch of Cyprian quotes when I get home later today

So because one of the two I quoted didn’t mention it that means he wasn’t in Rome? The other one actually says he was in Rome! Was he lying!?

 

[Lucky7]

Here’s another one:

*Peter Chrysologus

“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]). *

 

[Cavaradossi]

Here’s another one:

*Peter Chrysologus

“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]). *

Proof texting will avail you very little in this argument you’re having with Constantine, though it might make you feel better.

 

[TrueLight]

Proof texting will avail you very little in this argument you’re having with Constantine, though it might make you feel better.

Except that when people state that the early Fathers did not believe in Papal Supremacy then the best way to prove otherwise is to show quotes from the Early fathers. Many times, all we have are isolated quotes.

 

[Lucky7]

Proof texting will avail you very little in this argument you’re having with Constantine, though it might make you feel better.

Is that all you have? How about refuting what the early Fathers/the early Church actually said/wrote on the matter?

Here’s another:

*Council of Ephesus

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]). *

 

[brumano]

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.

I doubt we’re going to be on the same page on this; I had to go back to v10 not 11 and I don’t see sisters being addressed there, and this bible has some gender sensitive language in it. v10 is also profitable for edification, Therefore brothers be all the more eager to make your call and election firm for in doing so you will never stumble. (11) For in this way entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you.This is an Apostolic letter probably not unlike 1Peter that was propagated through Silvanus “a faithful brother” to "the chosen sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Asia, and Bithnia … 1Ptr.c1v1 and written or dictated from Rome. 1Ptr.c5v13.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Is that all you have? How about refuting what the early Fathers/the early Church actually said/wrote on the matter?

Here’s another:

*Council of Ephesus

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles*, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Yes, those are his legates speaking, not some approved statement of faith from the council itself. Like I said proof texting doesn’t work, because it involves reading statements in a fundamentalist manner, as if there is only one way to interpret them. So when you read these statements, you think “here is proof that the pope was the uncontrovertable head of the Church, supreme in his jurisdictional power and infallible in accordance with the First Vatican Council,” and accuse people of rejecting the faith of the fathers when it is really your interpretation which they reject. The historical recognition of the bishop of Rome as an important primate who hails from the city where tradition holds that Peter and Paul received their crowns of martyrdom does not mean that his position in the Church was universally believed to be indispensable, that he was held to have universal jurisdiction, or that he was believed to be infallible. In effect, proof-texts become red herrings. To really get into a serous discussion about these quotes would require an investigation into the religious, social, and even (the horror) political issues of the time when such statements were made, and unless you can provide sufficient context these statements have very little meaning in and of themselves.

 

[Lucky7]

So…what the early Church fathers said was pointless? Because I’m not reading any interpretation into what these few quotes (and this was just a few of many). What they said was pretty darn clear…no need for interpretation.

If you (or anyone else) choose(s) to ignore the support for Catholic Truth, that’s on you (them).

 

[Lucky7]

The historical recognition of the bishop of Rome as an important primate who hails from the city where tradition holds that Peter and Paul received their crowns of martyrdom does not mean that his position in the Church was universally believed to be indispensable, that he was held to have universal jurisdiction, or that he was believed to be infallible.

Oh, I don’t doubt that. To this day, there are many people who don’t believe much of what the Church teaches. Just because people don’t believe, doesn’t mean the Church isnt teaching it and it doesn’t mean what the Church is teaching isn’t true.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

So…what the early Church fathers said was pointless? Because I’m not reading any interpretation into what these few quotes (and this was just a few of many). What they said was pretty darn clear…no need for interpretation.

If you (or anyone else) choose(s) to ignore the support for Catholic Truth, that’s on you (them).

Lucky7 - I do think you are getting some sound advice here. This is one of the most controversial and complex subjects in all ecclesiology, at the very heart of the East - West divide.

If it were as simple as pulling up a few seemingly definitive quotes from the early Church, we might be long reconciled (or hopelessly divided).

Please do try to take this as charitable, constructive advice - I’m pretty sure that is how it was intended.

 

[Lucky7]

Lucky7 - I do think you are getting some sound advice here. This is one of the most controversial and complex subjects in all ecclesiology, at the very heart of the East - West divide.

If it were as simple as pulling up a few seemingly definitive quotes from the early Church, we might be long reconciled (or hopelessly divided).

Please do try to take this as charitable, constructive advice - I’m pretty sure that is how it was intended.

Honestly, I don’t think it needs to be so complicated. I keep coming back to …it took 1,000 years to split on something so controversial? If it was so controversial and essential to Chruch teachings, then why did it take so long? Is it really that much different than the controversial issues that Protestantism has with the RCC? They both seem to be saying the same thing…we know what the early Church really taught despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[josie_L]

Lucky7 - I do think you are getting some sound advice here. This is one of the most controversial and complex subjects in all ecclesiology, at the very heart of the East - West divide.

If it were as simple as pulling up a few seemingly definitive quotes from the early Church, we might be long reconciled (or hopelessly divided).

Please do try to take this as charitable, constructive advice - I’m pretty sure that is how it was intended.

There are more than a few quotes from the early Church (understandably however, it is important to provide context), I wonder why it is that when such quotes seem to coincide (quite accurately) with papal authority it is not clarified by our Orthodox brethren (on the spot). Were they aware of these quotes, do they themselves actively seek out the context in which these words were said, and if they do know the context in which they were said why don’t they provide it? For example, if I should quote St. Nicephorus of Constantinople:

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) says:

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30])

what pray tell does this quote mean (other than what it means), and if it means something altogether different, then can our Orthodox brethren, please provide context?

 

[RKO]

Admittedly I am a neophyte in this debate compared to everyone here, but isn’t the issue that the early Popes had an authority among all of the other bishops, but not some divinely inspired supremacy? The first issue that I am aware of is the unilateral instillation of the filioque. Clearly that was taken by the other Churches as a step beyond whatever authority they thought the Pope had up to that time.

So clearly, SOMETHING changed. Either all of the other bishops mutineed at one time, or there was an attempt to “enhance” the power of the roman Pope. Or am I jumping to a conclusion?