What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[Nicea325]

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

But my brother,did you read the entire document or merely isolate a sentence to prove an agenda? Again, I have yet to read an official Catholic document calling our Orthodox brothers as heretics. Orthodox have valid orders,sacraments,etc,etc,so why would anyone call Orthodox heretics? I for one do not and never would call you a heretic.

Blesssings my brother!

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
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.

His title or his role?

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

Recently? Like the recent title: First among equals? That is not a recent title?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

But my brother,did you read the entire document or merely isolate a sentence to prove an agenda?

I’m not supporting any agenda - I simply identified that passage which I was reasonable certain CTG had pointed to in prior posts.

To be frank, I’m not exactly sure how to interpret that line. Is it only applicable to Catholics from that point henceforth? I was hoping CTG might clarify and this question may have been answered. Call that an “agenda” if you so wish.

FWIW- I do find it difficult to interpret it as a blanket condemnation of the non-Catholic Christian world. That would also seem logically inconsistent with the ecumenical stance taken from Vatican II henceforth.

Bottom line, I’m as curious as you on this one.

 

[Nicea325]

I’m not supporting any agenda - I simply identified that passage which I was reasonable certain CTG had pointed to in prior posts.

To be frank, I’m not exactly sure how to interpret that line. Is it only applicable to Catholics from that point henceforth? I was hoping CTG might clarify and this question may have been answered. Call that an “agenda” if you so wish.

FWIW- I do find it difficult to interpret it as a blanket condemnation of the non-Catholic Christian world. That would also seem logically inconsistent with the ecumenical stance taken from Vatican II henceforth.

Bottom line, I’m as curious as you on this one.

I agree. I am just curious to know where CTG gets the impression the CC considers our Orthodox brothers and sisters as heretics?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I agree. I am just curious to know where CTG gets the impression the CC considers our Orthodox brothers and sisters as heretics?

Understood - clearly that is not the Church’s stance. Agree or disagree with the “policy”, the Church could not offer the Holy Eucharist to Orthodox faithful if they themselves or their Churches were deemed heretical.

 

[brumano]

Anyone who denies Peter’s leadership among the Apostles is in denial. But the fact is, there is no proof anywhere that the other Apostles are subordinate to him. Even in the opening of Acts, while Peter led the Apostles into a “synod” if we would like to call it that, the decision wasn’t his unilaterally. He gathered the other 10. If he is who the Pope is today, he could have just said that he was deciding on who the replacement of Judas was. Or that he was casting lots by himself. But no, he did everything with the other 10. As leader, he guided them to follow prophesy, but nothing was done unilaterally.

 

[Nicea325]

Understood - clearly that is not the Church’s stance. Agree or disagree with the “policy”, the Church could not offer the Holy Eucharist to Orthodox faithful if they themselves or their Churches were deemed heretical.

Precisely! Orthodoxy Christianity is beautiful and rich in tradition and I truly admire their liturgies.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

This thread isn’t about what Eastern Catholics think about the Pope.

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.

The title Pope was first used by the Patriarch of Alexandria, FYI.

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.

Leader of the chorus doesn’t mean the other choir members are subordinate to the leader.

Are you sure that St. Peter did nothing unilaterally at all? 2nd.Peter Ch.3 v15 and 16. confirms that St. Paul is a true brother Apostle, and that his letters even though they contain some things hard to understand are valid scriptures. If you join the two verses into one paragraph you also get part basis for his (St. Peter’s) doctrine on scriptural understanding as being given, not interpretive which completes the statement he makes in ch.2 v20 and 21. Those are three, count 'em 3 Papal Decrees, and a warning against those who those who distort scripture to their own destruction in basically two sentences of wordage.

I never said St. Paul is not an Apostle, so I don’t know what your point here is. I am saying that St. Paul is not subordinate to St. Peter unlike the bishops are to the Pope today.

 

[dzheremi]

I love HH Pope Shenouda III, and miss him terribly, but I do believe that he now intercedes for us, together with all of the saints who have pleased the Lord from the beginning, so this tempers my sadness. I will always remember how blessed I am to have entered into Orthodoxy under his leadership, as HH had a big impact on my decision to explore the Coptic Orthodox Church in particular.

I am quite fond of the Roman Pope, too. I think he seems in some ways quite committed to trying to bring some seriousness and dignity back to his confession, which is good, though at the same time I am also a little disappointed that some of what he wrote and did before he became Pope does not really seem to be reflected in the policy of the Roman Church now that he is its Pontiff (e.g., the stuff about Rome not expecting more from the East than what they already lived by in the first millennium, though maybe I’m not quite understanding what he meant by that). He is, like any bishop, not perfect, so I try to give him the benefit of the doubt and err on the side of generosity in interpreting his words and statements, to the extent that I read or hear them (which is pretty much not at all outside of this message board, to be honest).

As to the Rome-specific claims about their Pope, I don’t believe them. That’s all.

 

[dzheremi]

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 funny thing about the way that this is phrased is that, indeed, that specifically didn’t keep the Universal Church together, if you take “Universal Church” to mean the Chalcedonians. There were other issues of course, but I think that at least as far as concerns the schism of 1054 between the Byzantines and the Latins, the authority of the Roman Pope was the big issue.

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.

Orthodoxy?

 

[Hesychios]

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

Isn’t it unusual for a Council of the church to leave the final draft of it’s decrees to be released afterward as a Papal Bull? Was this done at Trent as well?

Just curious.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I am quite fond of the Roman Pope, too. I think he seems in some ways quite committed to trying to bring some seriousness and dignity back to his confession, which is good, though at the same time I am also a little disappointed that some of what he wrote and did before he became Pope does not really seem to be reflected in the policy of the Roman Church now that he is its Pontiff (e.g., the stuff about Rome not expecting more from the East than what they already lived by in the first millennium, though maybe I’m not quite understanding what he meant by that). He is, like any bishop, not perfect, so I try to give him the benefit of the doubt and err on the side of generosity in interpreting his words and statements, to the extent that I read or hear them (which is pretty much not at all outside of this message board, to be honest).

A generous point of view indeed from a non-Catholic’s perspective, yet there are Catholics who share some of it as well. That said, His Holiness was not young when he became Pontiff. He knew that his time was limited. I suspect, especially as we participate and see the range of views shared among Catholics in this and other forums, that His Holiness saw the need to address other pressing matters before pushing harder with the cause of ecumenism. He has declared a Year of Faith, to begin in the fall on the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II (and 20th of the publication of the CCC). An “inward focus” of New Evangelization is a major theme. It seems as if His Holiness recognizes that our own house needs some repair and maintenance, and that is where his focus is now placed. He also seems to be making some very deliberate episcopal and Curial appointments, all of which will set the stage for the next generation and Pontiff.

BTW - I too greatly admired HH Pope Shenouda III (Eternal memory!), and have been monitoring the news of the process for his successor with great interest. Especially given the political climate in which the Coptic Churches will now have to exist, there will certainly be challenges for his successor. We pray that the Holy Spirit will guide the Coptic Church to select a strong, inspiring and holy leader!

 

[GaryTaylor]

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…

I follow.

No, they are subordinate to the Pope…

sub·or·di·nate (s-bôrdn-t)
adj.

1. Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary.
2. Subject to the authority or control of another.
   n.
   One that is subordinate.
   tr.v. (s-bôrdn-t) sub·or·di·nat·ed, sub·or·di·nat·ing, sub·or·di·nates
3. To put in a lower or inferior rank or class.
4. To make subservient; subdue.

Not sure what your point is here?

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…

I pasted what St Irenaeus had wrote, I have his entire work here on file if you would like to read it.

How do you define leading role through History? I see the relation to history.

therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy.htm

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

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CF4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F12260a.htm&ei=14YUUIXwJpS56AHqrYGoCA&usg=AFQjCNHOD8IU1cofy1I7t6ikE2Im4xviXw&sig2=kuUIpuIXFW_eoa_s1U86sQ

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

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F01641a.htm&ei=DoYUUM7pEeP76gHXn4GoAw&usg=AFQjCNEk9BsFMnZAMHaSNo_yGK-ezQLUXg&sig2=irRxzrwo4Y7vfCVEA3C8jw

The Pope of Rome is not alone being Peter…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.josemariaescriva.info%2Farticle%2Fwhy-is-the-pope-peter&ei=G4UUUP-MIZSA6QGvzIGYCQ&usg=AFQjCNFjikkzd84du9AzYOKWEpgLC_ym0g&sig2=D2oOAd7cXa5h9uuaqU6iUw

Perhaps I am not understanding what your are saying?

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

All the Apostolic Churchs have been representative in obedience to the Lord. I think of the Good they represented when all were in harmony. I don’t dwell on the individual difference in culture, more to seek clear understanding from one Church to the next.

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

So they are they are subordinate to the Pope as you state above in this post?

 

[GaryTaylor]

His Holiness was not young when he became Pontiff. He knew that his time was limited. I suspect, especially as we participate and see the range of views shared among Catholics in this and other forums, that His Holiness saw the need to address other pressing matters before pushing harder with the cause of ecumenism. He has declared a Year of Faith, to begin in the fall on the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II (and 20th of the publication of the CCC). An “inward focus” of New Evangelization is a major theme. It seems as if His Holiness recognizes that our own house needs some repair and maintenance, and that is where his focus is now placed. He also seems to be making some very deliberate episcopal and Curial appointments, all of which will set the stage for the next generation and Pontiff.!

Agree’d

BTW - I too greatly admired HH Pope Shenouda III (Eternal memory!), and have been monitoring the news of the process for his successor with great interest. Especially given the political climate in which the Coptic Churches will now have to exist, there will certainly be challenges for his successor. We pray that the Holy Spirit will guide the Coptic Church to select a strong, inspiring and holy leader!

Agree’d

 

[cmforte]

What are the opinions of Orthodox Church towards Pope and the dogmas related to the Pope(like papal primacy and infallibility) ?
It seems that Orthodox Church does not recognise Pope as their leader and reject his authority. But why? Is it due to the historical reason?
Also, as a Roman Catholic, what are the evidences for us to support these doctrines and how can we reply on these arguments?

I like this source: goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523:

In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God’s Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25‑27).[44]

Before the schism, in times of ecclesiastical discord and theological controversies, appeals for peaceful resolutions and mediation were made to the pope from all parts of the Christian world. For instance, in the course of the iconoclast controversy, St Theodore the Studite (759‑829) urged the emperor to consult the pope: “If there is anything in the patriarch’s reply about which you feel doubt or disbelief… you may ask the chief elder in Rome for clarification, as has been the practice from the beginning according to inherited tradition.”[45] From an Orthodox perspective, however, it is important to emphasize that these appeals to the bishop of Rome are not to be understood in juridical terms. The case was not closed when Rome had spoken, and the Byzantines felt free on occasion to reject a Roman ruling.[46]

In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole Church. The bishop of Rome will, of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic church and in times of need be its spokesman. The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierarchical order within the Church, still less to a single see. In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith.

-Chris

 

[ConstantineTG]

sub·or·di·nate (s-bôrdn-t)
adj.

Let’s see here:

1. Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary.

Check.

1. Subject to the authority or control of another.

Check

n.
One that is subordinate.
tr.v. (s-bôrdn-t) sub·or·di·nat·ed, sub·or·di·nat·ing, sub·or·di·nates

1. To put in a lower or inferior rank or class.

Check

1. To make subservient; subdue.

Check.

Yup, the Bishops are subordinate to the Pope.

Not sure what your point is here?

As the flow of discussions are, Bishops are subordinates of the Pope.

I pasted what St Irenaeus had wrote, I have his entire work here on file if you would like to read it.

How do you define leading role through History? I see the relation to history.

therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy.htm

As I have kept repeating, there is no denying the Pope and the Roman Church ever took the lead. That is the fact. But does that leadership include universal ordinary jurisdiction? Was that leadership role every viewed as something passed on from St. Peter from the beginning?

Perhaps I am not understanding what your are saying?

As mentioned in the other thread, the view of the Orthodox on most matters of the faith comes from a different angle than Roman Catholics. You really have to immerse yourself in that frame of mind to understand it.

All the Apostolic Churchs have been representative in obedience to the Lord. I think of the Good they represented when all were in harmony. I don’t dwell on the individual difference in culture, more to seek clear understanding from one Church to the next.

Harmony and communion aren’t synonymous. People are people, the Church wasn’t as harmonious as one would like to think prior to the schism. And even within Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church today, it’s hardly a complete harmony.

So they are they are subordinate to the Pope as you state above in this post?

No they were not back in the day.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I like this source: goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523:

-Chris

Certainly! History proves that Rome has primacy from the earliest days of the Church. But how the primacy was practiced back then is different from the primacy that exists today.

 

[GaryTaylor]

.As I have kept repeating, there is no denying the Pope and the Roman Church ever took the lead. That is the fact. But does that leadership include universal ordinary jurisdiction? Was that leadership role every viewed as something passed on from St. Peter from the beginning?.

I posted all the reading material on this, either you missed it or didn’t read it. I assume all those “checks” above is taken as you read it.

different angle than Roman Catholics. You really have to immerse yourself in that frame of mind to understand it…

Different angle? Be it East of West you REALLY “should” immerse yourself.

Harmony and communion aren’t synonymous.

Never stated it was

People are people,

CC always taught this. Hows the EO doing in this area?

. the Church wasn’t as harmonious as one would like to think prior to the schism.

I never said it was, we are fully aware of all the heresy and errors of men, however it was in Communion.

. And even within Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church today, it’s hardly a complete harmony…

Who exactly are you speaking about and for “today”? Those in Communion with Rome?

. No they were not back in the day.

When you make a blanket statement like this, then its your burden of proof. I see nothing to indicate we should believe otherwise as you seem to believe. And I do believe Father Hardins arguement on this specifically is brilliant. Its in the link you “checked” above.

 

[GaryTaylor]

'In Irenaeus’ day, there were no differences among the apostolic Churches with respect to Catholic truth since they all faithfully adhered to the apostolic tradition. During the latter part of the second century there were no apostolic bishops such as Nestorius of Constantinople and Dioscorus of Alexandria. For this reason Irenaeus could state that one could distinguish truth from heresy by consulting bishops who had been appointed by the Apostles or by their successors. Consequently, there was no need for definitive papal teaching.

In another passage of his work, however, Irenaeus wrote of the necessity for every Church to agree doctrinally with the Church of Rome, the greatest, the best known and most ancient of all.

“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.” St Irenaeus

Among the apostolic Churches, only the Church of Rome was so distinguished. It is not impossible that the reason for this was a belief in the primacy of the papal magisterium. ’

Of couse Fr Hardin then extends much deeper with St Augustine. the link is above, which does establish the reality of the papal magisterium.

So then what does “more powerful principality” mean exactly as we see how this relates through time? Thus there is no reason reason to believe the papal magesterium didn’t exist in the early centuries. Nor does this do justice to the scholars of this period.

Fr Hardin from the above link!

So we see the Primacy through time and when words such as “more powerful principality” are used, also there in no need to focus on the semantics hamster wheel.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor
n. One that is subordinate.
tr.v. (s-bôrdn-t) sub·or·di·nat·ed, sub·or·di·nat·ing, sub·or·di·nates

1. To put in a lower or inferior rank or class.

Begging forgiveness for interjecting here, but it seems as if this may be the point on which your premise becomes debatable. Catholic teaching is clear that the Papacy is not a class (of one) standing above all other bishops.

Granted, it is the seeming limitations on the exercise of episcopal authority that create this perception.

Yet to infer that Catholic bishops are in a class below the Pope argues that they are not really bishops at all.

Its possible you may believe that, but I would also venture guess that you would agree that is not consistent with Church teaching and also has some logical flaws when one considers other implications (e.g. Apostolic succession; validity of Councils; etc.). One does not become bishop until one becomes Pope?