What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[GaryTaylor]

p.s. For all Catholics interested in good Catholic Apologetics website, please visit these cites

Okay, and thats the quick 10-minute 2000 year… unbias version?

 

[ConstantineTG]

So, there were basically 5 churches. Well, I guess there was “The Church in Antioch,” The Church in Rome," etc.
It seems like this is a discussion of collegiality. At what point does the Bishop of Rome go past " primacy," and have the authority to unlaterally decide something that must be accepted in every other church by every other Patriarch, without dissent?

It seems to me that there is an agreement that Rome was the leader, but is Rome the “monarch” of the Church? I guess that’s where the argument breaks down. That’s where east and west hasn’t agreed for 1000 years, and certainly won’t in the near future.
Seems a very great pity to me, but maybe it’s God’s plan…

Definitely. Orthodoxy doesn’t reject structure. The Orthodox Churches as structured. Each autocephalous Church has a Primate or Patriarch. However, how that primacy is exercised is quite different with how the Pope exercises his. If the Pope is a Primate among Patriarchs, similar to what a Patriarch is to his brother bishops in his Church, I believe that position is completely acceptable to the Orthodox.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That chair is the seat of every bishop (they have access to it) if they are in communion with the see of Rome, although it is the See of Rome which truly holds the office of St. Peter, i.e., with all the significance Christ gave it through Peter.

The reason being that St. Peter left Antioch for Rome, and as such before he died IN ROME, appointed his successor (he who would continue his office) IN ROME, not Antioch. I believe it was God who led St. Peter to Rome (and St. Paul too) because it was as you stated at the epicenter of the World.

The problem here is there is no evidence that any Apostle held a seat at any Church anywhere. They establish a Church, appoint a bishop, and then go somewhere else. Apostles are “super missionaries”. St. Paul, on record, has established more Churches than the other Apostles. Yes he is not linked as being a bishop in any one of them.

St. Peter has sat in council in Jerusalem with the other Apostles years after Antioch was established as a Church.

Then there’s the issue of why, if the chair of Peter is given to a single super-ordinary bishop and not to all bishops, was St. Peter’s [first and longest-held] office as Bishop of Antioch subordinate to his office in Rome?

As noted above, Peter say in Jerusalem all the while Antioch was a functioning Church. He never sat in Antioch. He established it, but he never sat as the bishop.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
And again we keep quoting Scripture to prove this, why is it not spelled out plainly in Scripture given that the role of the Pope does seem pretty important. .

My brother in Christ. But do you not think your position is unorthodox about Scripture? Scripture was not written down on the basis, everything needed to be written as explicit as possible in order to validate it as true.Scripture does NOT teach about explicitness. It is a book of salvation history and faith.

God Bless.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My brother in Christ. But do you not think your position is unorthodox about Scripture? Scripture was not written down on the basis, everything needed to be written as explicit as possible in order to validate it as true.Scripture does it teach about explicitness. It is a book of salvation history and faith.

God Bless.

Definitely. But the Catholic Church says if I don’t believe in the Pope’s authoirty, I’m a heretic and anathemized. So the Papacy is an article of faith according to Pastor Aeternus. So if my salvation depends on the Papacy, why is it not clear in the Bible?

 

[Nicea325]

Definitely. But the Catholic Church says if I don’t believe in the Pope’s authoirty, I’m a heretic and anathemized. So the Papacy is an article of faith according to Pastor Aeternus. So if my salvation depends on the Papacy, why is it not clear in the Bible?

My brother, may you please an approved Catholic document stating our Orthodox brothers are heretics? Likewise,that our salvation depends on the papacy? Last time I checked, our salvation depends on a lot of other factors. Our faith in God,God’s graces,etc,etc.

God Bless my brother.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I disagree

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we shall put to confusion all those who… assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the Faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should convene with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, because the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere” St Irenaues

Note that is says “convene” and not “subject to”.

And St Peter was their spokesman.

True. That doesn’t mean they are subordinate to Peter.

St Paul perished in Rome and as has always been connected and distiguished as such to this day. And His feelings on this matter are also Biblical.

My point there is, if Peter is passing on his authority, what about the other Apostles? Don’t have have roles too? Don’t they have importance?

Thing is, the Apostles have unique roles in the Church. Even if everything about Peter is true, what conclusive evidence do we have that he passed any of it to anyone? And we can look at the other Apostles if they passed on anything to anyone.

You mean clearly “enough” St Peter is mentioned how many times compared to the other beloved Apostles? How many times does Jesus Christ mention Church [Once] and who does He build this Church upon?

But again how does everything here connect to universal jurisdiction and authority over all the other bishops? Last time I checked, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, not the crown.

We know where the Church is we do not not know where it is not. All are called to Communion and we pray for those Souls daily.

Depends what we mean by communion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My brother, may you please an approved Catholic document stating our Orthodox brothers are heretics? Likewise,that our salvation depends on the papacy? Last time I checked, our salvation depends on a lot of other factors. Our faith in God,God’s graces,etc,etc.

God Bless my brother.

Is there salvation for one that is anathemized? Anathema is an exercise of Apostolic authority to bind and lose. When you are excommunicated, you are denied access to Communion but surely you can repent and be reinstated. If you are anathemized, you are kicked out of the Church. And you know what we teach about those who are outside the Church, right?

 

[Nicea325]

Is there salvation for one that is anathemized? Anathema is an exercise of Apostolic authority to bind and lose. When you are excommunicated, you are denied access to Communion but surely you can repent and be reinstated. If you are anathemized, you are kicked out of the Church. And you know what we teach about those who are outside the Church, right?

My brother, that is not what I asked you to provide. I asked if you may please provide the Catholic document stating our Orthodox brothers and sisters are heretics? And that our salvation depends on the office of the papacy?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

My brother, that is not what I asked you to provide. I asked if you may please provide the Catholic document stating our Orthodox brothers and sisters are heretics? And that our salvation depends on the office of the papacy?

If I may, on the latter question, I think he is referring to one of the closing statements of Pastor Aeternus:

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

source: EWTN - First Vatican Council

 

[Hesychios]

If I may, on the latter question, I think he is referring to one of the closing statements of Pastor Aeternus:
%between%

Is Pastor Aeternus actually a Papal bull?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Is Pastor Aeternus actually a Papal bull?

As I understand it (perhaps subject to correction), it is a dogmatic (or, apostolic) constitution, and such is issued as a papal bull.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is Pastor Aeternus actually a Papal bull?

As I understand it (perhaps subject to correction), it is a dogmatic (or, apostolic) constitution, and such is issued as a papal bull.

It is indeed an Apostolic Constitution, which means it is dogma and pronounced ex cathedra. It is infallible.

Nicea325, let me run down Pastor Aeternus for you

Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

Certainly the Orthodox believe that Peter is head of the choir of the Apostles and certainly he has more than just “primacy in honor” among them. Note that this is about St. Peter, and not the Bishop of Rome.

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Okay, definitely the Orthodox do not believe that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter in this his primacy. They believe the Church of Rome, and by extension its Bishop. So let’s say this one’s a coin-toss.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Now they got 'em.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Note that is says “convene” and not “subject to”…

NOTE it says… “on account of its “preeminent authority” [ROMES]”

Weak apologetics on any Orthodox web-sight is what your reduced to.

True. That doesn’t mean they are subordinate to Peter…

Are the Eastern Catholics Bishops “Subordinate” to Peter?

My point there is, if Peter is passing on his authority, what about the other Apostles? Don’t have have roles too? Don’t they have importance?.

Of course, and my Point is … Not in Communion is not part of UNITY which Cyprian, Irenaeus and everyone spoke about for 1100 years. How do you reconcile this but through lacking apologetics?

Thing is, the Apostles have unique roles in the Church. Even if everything about Peter is true, what conclusive evidence do we have that he passed any of it to anyone? And we can look at the other Apostles if they passed on anything to anyone…

Ireneaues among others … what conclusive evidence does the EO have have about ANYTHING? Can you prove your Apostolic Succession, Show Us.

What are you saying you don’t believe in your own Apostolic Succession?

But again how does everything here connect to universal jurisdiction and authority over all the other bishops? Last time I checked, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, not the crown…

Jesus build His Church Upon Peter, the one the EO is not in Communion with.

Communion not “protesting” And all are called to that Communion which is Obedience an issue with the EO for sure.

Depends what we mean by communion.

“For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere”…Thats what I mean by Communion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If I may, on the latter question, I think he is referring to one of the closing statements of Pastor Aeternus:

source: EWTN - First Vatican Council

Yet this rooted in the faith of the Church the Councils, Saint Irenaues and the remainer of the Foot notes sighted for more in-depth study and insight. .

Pastor aeternus is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, issued by the First Vatican Council, July 18, 1870. Its followed by V-II LG for further definition.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPastor_aeternus&ei=VIoSUPiZLInz0gH064HoCQ&usg=AFQjCNHs4ELA0Qy0Zspkwn__ksjmxXZuXA&sig2=d5MDsNUbovhIFN8FRIkVMg

 

[Lucky7]

all are called to that Communion which is Obedience an issue with the EO for sure.

Ditto. It seems to me that over and over again evidence is provided for the Catholic teaching re: the Pope as the Successor of Peter in Rome and his preeminent authority. It is either ignored, picked apart and judged as insufficient, called red herrings, etc when in reality it gives exactly what has been asked for over and over again. Or context is asked for and, when it is, that context is not the right context. I also see repeated requests for proof in Scripture as if the Orthodox are really just another brand of Fundamentalist Protestantism. Really? I always thought that with the Orthodox we at least didn’t have that issue.

 

[Hesychios]

Ditto. It seems to me that over and over again evidence is provided for the Catholic teaching re: the Pope as the Successor of Peter in Rome and his preeminent authority.

All bishops are the successors of Peter. Peter was an early model for a bishop.

The pre-eminent authority claim for one bishop, if it refers to universal jurisdiction (as you seem to be endorsing), is new. History does not support it.

Roman Catholics very often interpret Roman primacy in the terms that only make sense for the 19th century western church.

Primacy is important, no one will argue that it is not, but universal jurisdiction is not how primacy manifests.

 

[Lucky7]

The pre-eminent authority claim for one bishop, if it refers to universal jurisdiction (as you seem to be endorsing), is new. History does not support it.

Actually, as I stated earlier, evidence has been provided…just chosen to ignore.

 

[ConstantineTG]

NOTE it says… “on account of its “preeminent authority” [ROMES]”

Weak apologetics on any Orthodox web-sight is what your reduced to.

No, I read a book that is well researched by 5 people. It is not weak though I admit I may not be representing their studies well.

Are the Eastern Catholics Bishops “Subordinate” to Peter?

No, they are subordinate to the Pope.

Of course, and my Point is … Not in Communion is not part of UNITY which Cyprian, Irenaeus and everyone spoke about for 1100 years. How do you reconcile this but through lacking apologetics?

That is a product of Roman Catholic polemics. Irenaeus never spoke about subjection to the Roman Pontiff. The problem is that any sort of primacy and authority is interpreted today as Papal Supremacy as defined by Vatican I. Rome had a leading role in the Church from the earliest days. But the fact is, it is not the same as what Vatican I declared.

Ireneaues among others … what conclusive evidence does the EO have have about ANYTHING? Can you prove your Apostolic Succession, Show Us.

Can you prove that Peter even deliberately passed any authority to anyone?

What are you saying you don’t believe in your own Apostolic Succession?

Apostolic succession is different from passing any direct authority the Apostles had.

Jesus build His Church Upon Peter, the one the EO is not in Communion with.

The Pope of Rome is not alone being Peter.

Communion not “protesting” And all are called to that Communion which is Obedience an issue with the EO for sure.

There is plenty of obedience in the EO to their bishops.

“For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere”…Thats what I mean by Communion.

Again, there is nothing here that says other Churches must be subjected to Rome. Big, big, big, big difference.

 

[brumano]

a. My Church (the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) calls him the same thing you Romans do
b. The title the Pope has today is not something that has been there from the beginning.
c. St. Peter was often ascribed the title Coryphaeus, which means “leader of the chorus”. Not that lengthy title you just posted which most of which has only been given recently.

If you call him what we call him then you shouldn’t be confused about the connection between him and the Roman Catholic Church whether it’s in Greece, Ukrania, China, here in the US or anywhere the World over. He is primate over the entire Church.

The title Pope which you just referred to him as has been his for quite a long long time since you should know, and that it was given to him by Greek Catholics from their word Papa.

it’s ok to think of him as the leader of a chorus if the chorus is the Universal Church, but that alone wouldn’t have kept the chorus in harmony or even still singing together at all over all these centuries, the question you might want to investigate might be where the church would be now without a Pope having all those lengthy titles of authority as he has needed from that beginning.