What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[ByzCathCantor]

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).

Remember, I’m Catholic.

We can go in circles in this mode as well. Again, if the argument were so very crystal clear, then why have we been arguing for nearly 1,000 years about who’s right?

IMHO, the Catholic Church is going about this in the right way. The process really started in earnest with Vatican II. Yes, nearly 50 years has passed, a small fraction of the time we have been separated. Yet, a formal dialogue has taken place. Conclusions have been reached.

The last two sessions (2009 and 2010) were specifically on the subject of - “The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium”. As in any good modern Church drama, a draft document was leaked and is in the public domain (click here - an interesting read). Once a formal, official concensus has been reached, the Joint Commission can move on to consider a model for a reunited Apostolic Church and the role of the Papacy.

As was pointed out earlier, there was truly a confluence of ecclesiastical and political considerations that contributed to the separation. As with any other complex human endeavor, it will take some time and/or a lot of courage to make some progress.

What made communism fall? In the end, it was the collective will of peoples and leaders on both sides that made it possible. Rome has shown great courage, commitment and compassion in the quest for reunion, as have many Orthodox leaders. We could trust in them to finish the job, while we too seek to understand the full spectrum of truth from both perspectives - Catholic and Orthodox.

 

[Lucky7]

Remember, I’m Catholic.

We can go in circles in this mode as well. Again, if the argument were so very crystal clear, then why have we been arguing for nearly 1,000 years about who’s right?

IMHO, the Catholic Church is going about this in the right way. The process really started in earnest with Vatican II. Yes, nearly 50 years has passed, a small fraction of the time we have been separated. Yet, a formal dialogue has taken place. Conclusions have been reached.

The last two sessions (2009 and 2010) were specifically on the subject of - “The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium”. As in any good modern Church drama, a draft document was leaked and is in the public domain (click here - an interesting read). Once a formal, official concensus has been reached, the Joint Commission can move on to consider a model for a reunited Apostolic Church and the role of the Papacy.

As was pointed out earlier, there was truly a confluence of ecclesiastical and political considerations that contributed to the separation. As with any other complex human endeavor, it will take some time and/or a lot of courage to make some progress.

What made communism fall? In the end, it was the collective will of peoples and leaders on both sides that made it possible. Rome has shown great courage, commitment and compassion in the quest for reunion, as have many Orthodox leaders. We could trust in them to finish the job, while we too seek to understand the full spectrum of truth from both perspectives - Catholic and Orthodox.

But both sides aren’t going to budge from their view. The RCC will not say, “oh, okay let’s remove the traditional understanding of the Pope and have all bishops equal”. And the Orthodox church isn’t going to all of a sudden say, “Yup we should have been in line with Catholic teaching all along”. One side would have to admit that it’s been wrong for over a millenia.

 

[TrueLight]

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.

I agree with this point. Both sides can show quotes from the Bible or from Church fathers and one can argue whether something is apostolic teaching or not.

The real question is: before it became an issue, why was it not? And if it was accepted before, why is it not now accepted?

If it wasn’t an issue before, one can’t say, hundreds of years later, that the CC is not following apostolic teaching.

One can say, “Look, we’re tired of being bossed around by Peter.”

But that’s another issue.

 

[josie_L]

Remember, I’m Catholic.

Yes, I know (and glad of it), however, I just wanted to say that there is a lot of harping on the use of quotations by certain Orthodox posters, however, none of these said posters ever provide the context necessary to invalidate the quotes (which are being used repeatedly by Catholics to justify papal primacy). I’m just curious as to whether or not they were aware of the quotes in the first place, and if they were, can they provide context, and if they can’t, why can’t they? It would bother me as an Orthodox to see such quotes (they do seem to support papal primacy).

God bless.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

But both sides aren’t going to budge from their view. The RCC will not say, “oh, okay let’s remove the traditional understanding of the Pope and have all bishops equal”. And the Orthodox church isn’t going to all of a sudden say, “Yup we should have been in line with Catholic teaching all along”. One side would have to admit that it’s been wrong for over a millenia.

Both sides have budged a bit over this stretch, some would argue the Catholic Church more so than the Orthodox Churches.

As with everything else, the final answer will lie somewhere in the middle. Its just a question as to whether it ends up left or right of center.

Both Pope Benedict XVI and his Blessed predecessor are on record on this point (though some discount Pope Benedict XVI’s record because the statements predated his Papacy). Nonetheless, the door has been opened by Rome for dialogue on a revised role of the Papacy in a unified Church.

 

[Lucky7]

Both sides have budged a bit over this stretch, some would argue the Catholic Church more so than the Orthodox Churches.

As with everything else, the final answer will lie somewhere in the middle. Its just a question as to whether it ends up left or right of center.

Both Pope Benedict XVI and his Blessed predecessor are on record on this point (though some discount Pope Benedict XVI’s record because the statements predated his Papacy). Nonetheless, the door has been opened by Rome for dialogue on a revised role of the Papacy in a unified Church.

What is this revised role? It can’t contradict (Catholic) Church teaching.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

What is this revised role? It can’t contradict (Catholic) Church teaching.

Yet to be defined, and that is the quandary. Pastor Aeternus is very hard to unwind.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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:

So you respond to the precautionary note that proof texting is the wong way to approach this matter with more proof texts. How novel. The reason that more context is not given is that the historical context behind such quotations literally fills volumes and tens of thousands of pages. It is unreasonable that the person trying to make an assertion should ask the sceptic to provide more context, and appealing to the fact that the critic has not supplied context is the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance whereby the lack of contrary evidence is used to support the supposed truth of the affirmative. If it is your wish to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a proposition is true, then you are the one who rightfully must provide the context and analysis, not the sceptic.

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?

That without the approval of the bishop of Rome, the council could not have had full currency and authority within the historical boundaries of the Empire. He does not, however, say that the approval of the Roman bishop is a sufficient condition for a council to be fully authoritative (which your Church seems to teach today), nor that the council had no authority of its own, only that this condition was necessary for it to carry its full authority. Now the question is, why would he believe this? Did he believe so because he believed in the primacy of the Pope as defined by Vatican I? I do not think that is plausible. I think it is more plausible that he believed so because the bishop of Rome was not only a patriarch, but canonically the first among them, so that if, as the Second Council of Nicaea speculated, the approval of all patriarchs in the ecumene was necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical, then surely the Bishop of Rome’s approval would be necessary, if even the approval of the least among the patriarchs, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, was needed.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, I know (and glad of it), however, I just wanted to say that there is a lot of harping on the use of quotations by certain Orthodox posters, however, none of these said posters ever provide the context necessary to invalidate the quotes (which are being used repeatedly by Catholics to justify papal primacy). I’m just curious as to whether or not they were aware of the quotes in the first place, and if they were, can they provide context, and if they can’t, why can’t they? It would bother me as an Orthodox to see such quotes (they do seem to support papal primacy).

God bless.

The burden of proof lies not with the critic. As frustrating as you may find it, the objections that those quotes are not given with sufficient context must be considered if you wish to prove anything.

 

[Lucky7]

The burden of proof lies not with the critic.

Let me guess: you’re an attorney.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Let me guess: you’re an attorney.

Not even close.

 

[Lucky7]

Not even close.

lol…

 

[Lucky7]

The burden of proof lies not with the critic. As frustrating as you may find it, the objections that those quotes are not given with sufficient context must be considered if you wish to prove anything.

Well, with respect to Optatus’ quote, he was responding against the Donatist Schism…and what constituted proper, valid episcopal succession. Rather than focusing on succession in a certain city (namely Carthage), he chose to respond regarding episcopal succession for the whole Church (namely Rome). Here it is again:

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 — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

I think that context covers it. Peter was the first Pope and he was the head of all of the other apostles…in Rome.

 

[josie_L]

The burden of proof lies not with the critic. As frustrating as you may find it, the objections that those quotes are not given with sufficient context must be considered if you wish to prove anything.

I never said I wasn’t going to provide context. I’m just wondering why you haven’t (or other Orthodox haven’t) when we quote these sayings by the Church fathers.

p.s. to be continued. . . .

 

[josie_L]

So you respond to the precautionary note that proof texting is the wong way to approach this matter with more proof texts. How novel

Funny guy, I was testing you to see whether or not you would provide me with the context for the quote mentioned in my previous post.

The reason that more context is not given is that the historical context behind such quotations literally fills volumes and tens of thousands of pages. It is unreasonable that the person trying to make an assertion should ask the sceptic to provide more context, and appealing to the fact that the critic has not supplied context is the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance whereby the lack of contrary evidence is used to support the supposed truth of the affirmative. If it is your wish to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a proposition is true, then you are the one who rightfully must provide the context and analysis, not the sceptic.

Sheesh, so technical!

That without the approval of the bishop of Rome, the council could not have had full currency and authority within the historical boundaries of the Empire. He does not, however, say that the approval of the Roman bishop is a sufficient condition for a council to be fully authoritative (which your Church seems to teach today), nor that the council had no authority of its own, only that this condition was necessary for it to carry its full authority. Now the question is, why would he believe this? Did he believe so because he believed in the primacy of the Pope as defined by Vatican I?

I believed by context you meant historical context (thereby providing a valid response to the quote) of which you did not provide (although I thank you all the same for your response/opinion on the quote). Moreover, what do you mean by “within the historical boundaries of the Empire” when the quote speaks of “the rule in sacred things” Please let me quote it again:

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])

I do not think that is plausible. I think it is more plausible that he believed so because the bishop of Rome was not only a patriarch, but canonically the first among them, so that if, as the Second Council of Nicaea speculated, the approval of all patriarchs in the ecumene was necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical, then surely the Bishop of Rome’s approval would be necessary, if even the approval of the least among the patriarchs, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, was needed.

Again, I thank you for your response, but that doesn’t do justice to the quote (I will provide the historical context in due time).

p.s. There are many other fathers that spoke of the pre-eminence of the pope in like manner, e.g., St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Theodore the Studite, St. Irenaeus. . . And I have read the history of Christendom to set forth many examples of papal primacy as understood from the Catholic perspective.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Funny guy, I was testing you to see whether or not you would provide me with the context for the quote mentioned in my previous post.

If you wish to dispel my scepticism, then you can do so by giving an historical context

I believed by context you meant historical context (thereby providing a valid response to the quote) of which you did not provide (although I thank you all the same for your response/opinion on the quote). Moreover, what do you mean by “within the historical boundaries of the Empire” when the quote speaks of “the rule in sacred things” Please let me quote it again

Some background on the so-called ecumenical councils:

The very term ‘ecumenical’ used to describe the ecumenical councils derives from the Greek term oikoumene, which at some point meant ‘the known world’. As the empire shrank, however, its meaning shifted to meaning the ‘of the empire’ (this semantic shift never happened in the West, since Greek was not actively spoken there). This explains pope Gregory’s controversy with John the Faster over the title Ecumenical Patriarch. Pope Gregory understood Ecumenical Patriarch to mean universal patriarch, which he rightfully recognized would destroy the structure of the Church by making all other bishops the vicar of one bishop, while the East would have understood Ecumenical Patriarch to mean something more along the lines of ‘Patriarch of the Imperial City’.

Now when a council convened by the Emperor finished, its canons immediately went into effect as imperial law. This is why Leo, Archbishop of Rome, could do nothing to overturn Second Ephesus, even though he considered it to be a robber synod, because until the death of Emperor Theodosius II, Second Ephesus was already being enforced by imperial sanction, with or without the approval of the bishop of Rome. Upon Theodosius’ death, his sister, Pulcheria and her political husband for convenience, Marcian, (Pulcheria had taken a vow of chastity and never consummated her marriage) decided to overturn Theodosius’ decision in favor of holding yet another council in the East (over Pope Leo’s protestations that it should be held in the West).

Anyway, the point is that by the time of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the constant process of reversals in imperial law had caused the fathers to look for a better indicator of whether a council should truly be regarded as ecumenical and worthy of being appended to imperial law. The solution which the Seventh Ecumenical Council came up with (and which it seems was never rejected by Rome), was that the council should be approved by all five Patriarchs. I find it unlikely that Patriarch Nicephorus would have been ignorant of this concept which had been drafted in a council just two decades earlier, and it is already plausible to interpret that statement in such a way. Or perhaps he recognizes a primacy along the lines of Apostolic Canon 34? It is hard to say, especially without more context. But see, this seems to be a rather unfair tactic. How can you demand that I give an explanation while you deliberately withhold pertinent information which you claim to have access to? Is it so that you can take my speculations and later set them up as strawmen to knock down? Honestly, until you provide more context, I will have to refuse to indulge your requests for interpretations of the quote as I previously did.

There are many other fathers that spoke of the pre-eminence of the pope in like manner, e.g., St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Theodore the Studite, St. Irenaeus. . . And I have read the history of Christendom to set forth many examples of papal primacy as understood from the Catholic perspective.

It would be naive to think that the Orthodox are unaware of these quotes. The problem is that none of them demonstrate what Catholic apologists claim they demonstrate. It is a red herring. Apologists furnish quotes which could easily be read to demonstrate a general primacy (one that could be compatible with apostolic canon 34), a primacy which nobody disagrees Rome seemed to hold during the first millennium, and then claim that they support papacy as defined by the First Vatican Council. That frankly is not enough. It would be as if I wished to prove that exercise causes weight loss and extends one’s lifespan (two much-believed ‘facts’ which have never been conclusively shown by medical studies) by citing studies which have shown that exercise leads to an improved quality of life and better health (both things which have been established by studies to be observably true). The evidence supplied simply does not support the conclusion.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well, with respect to Optatus’ quote, he was responding against the Donatist Schism…and what constituted proper, valid episcopal succession. Rather than focusing on succession in a certain city (namely Carthage), he chose to respond regarding episcopal succession for the whole Church (namely Rome). Here it is again:

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 — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

I think that context covers it. Peter was the first Pope and he was the head of all of the other apostles…in Rome.

Again, context is everything. St. Optatus is arguing against his opponent Parmenian’s argument that the Church had six *Dotes *or Endowments from God, and these were Cathedra, Angelus, Spiritus, Fons, Sigilius, and Umbilicus. In his argument, Optatus denies that the sixth is an endowment, and argues that the Orthodox Catholic Church possesses the other five, not the Donatists, so that even by their own argument, the Donatists are not the true Catholic Church. Now have you every heard of the five Dotes or Endowments of the Church? Chances are unless you have studied the Donatist schism you have not. Why? Because this concept appears nowhere else in the Patristic literature (as in, no other fathers mention this concept at all). Surely you cannot intend that an argument over a metaphysical concept which appears only once in all of patristic literature can be used to support a dogma.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

That is why my advice is to go buy the book

I mean, I’m not going to retype the entire chapter just to prove a point. I will have an excerpt, and someone else will have an excerpt. Then it becomes “my excerpt is better than your excerpt.” The book of course gives the complete interpretation of whatever it is extracting, along with all the study that the author put into making their point.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

bible.cc/2_peter/1-10.htm

Okay, maybe I opened up one of those “politically correct” Bible versions. But surely still the passage is not directed to one person. So it is wrong to associate this passage into a passing of authority to one person.

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.

Actually, it is complicated. It did not take 1000 years for the split to happen. It took 1200 years for the split to be official, but from accounts the animosity between East and West has been documented from the 4th century. This isn’t something that the bishops wake up one day and say, “hey, wait a minute. I don’t like this. You’re excommunicated.” This dragged on for centuries. And even after the formal split, The Council of Florence tried to bring the Churches back together. This didn’t happen overnight.

It is much different than the Reformation because Martin Luther sought to reform the Church by establishing what he believed to be is the right order of the Church. He identified a problem in his lifetime and tried to correct it in his lifetime.

I agree with this point. Both sides can show quotes from the Bible or from Church fathers and one can argue whether something is apostolic teaching or not.

The real question is: before it became an issue, why was it not? And if it was accepted before, why is it not now accepted?

It wasn’t an issue because it didn’t exist. It wasn’t accepted before because there was nothing to accept. The tricky part here is, what if Rome is being honest and this is what they believed all along, but Constantinople doesn’t know about it.

If it wasn’t an issue before, one can’t say, hundreds of years later, that the CC is not following apostolic teaching.

One can say, “Look, we’re tired of being bossed around by Peter.”

But that’s another issue.

Well, its telling when the Eastern Churches, which is a good number of Churches, all in unison rejected Rome’s claim to such an authority. If it was just a few prideful bishops, I’m pretty sure some other bishops in the East would have taken Rome’s side.

Now I wonder where the Maronites are in all this. They claimed to not have broken communion with Rome. But were they a participant at all?

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!?

The problem is polemics is part of this even from way back. Even the book I am reading points out polemicists and avoids them. And this is from the Orthodox point of view. I’m pretty sure Rome isn’t trying to con anyone here. This is their understanding of the truth and thus will write as such. But this just captures their point of view then and not a balanced view of the situation.

 

[Lucky7]

Again, context is everything. St. Optatus is arguing against his opponent Parmenian’s argument that the Church had six *Dotes *or Endowments from God, and these were Cathedra, Angelus, Spiritus, Fons, Sigilius, and Umbilicus. In his argument, Optatus denies that the sixth is an endowment, and argues that the Orthodox Catholic Church possesses the other five, not the Donatists, so that even by their own argument, the Donatists are not the true Catholic Church. Now have you every heard of the five Dotes or Endowments of the Church? Chances are unless you have studied the Donatist schism you have not. Why? Because this concept appears nowhere else in the Patristic literature (as in, no other fathers mention this concept at all). Surely you cannot intend that an argument over a metaphysical concept which appears only once in all of patristic literature can be used to support a dogma.

Where does this context explain the Optatus quote repeated below? Because nothing you wrote appears to actaully refute it. I provided information too on the context of the quote, but you completely ignored it.

And there are many other quotes out there. We’re working on this one. If you can’t refute it completely and explain why he said here what he said here, then you haven’t proven your side’s viewpoint. Yes, Donatists are not the true church, but Optatus is clear that the true church is the one which recognizes Peter as head of the apostles…the one which recognizes Peter’s chair as the “single” chair which maintains unity. The Orthodox Church does not, so…it’s not the true church.

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 — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).