What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not contesting that St. Peter ordained St. Clement. I’m doubting he was ordained as a successor to St. Peter’s authority and primacy.

The article above also extends into this area and gives the correct Catholic understanding on this perspective. Which at times becomes distorted.

Its addressed. When you ask me did I read, then I would have to ask you the same question? I’m trying to help you put this in perspective as to the questions you have. Here let me show you quickly.

"Let me save everyone a lot of wasted energy by pointing out the crucial fault in this author’s understanding of what Catholics believe and teach when it comes to “Apostolic succession.” Very simply, “Apostolic succession” DOES NOT mean that the Pope, or any other bishop, succeeds to the full office of an Apostle. That is not the Catholic claim at all. Rather, “Apostolic succession” maintains that a Pope, or a particular bishop, succeeds FROM an Apostle or Apostles. It, in no way, implies that this Pope or this bishop is now an Apostle himself.

Furthermore, it in no way implies that this Pope or this bishop is Divinely-inspired (as the Apostles were), or infallible (in the sense that the Apostles were), or that they are the originators of new, Christ-given revelation (as the Apostles were).

Rather, the Pope and his brother bishops are merely the authoritative, Spirit-protected guardians of revelation (i.e. the Apostolic Deposit of Faith) that has already been delivered to us, in full, by the Apostles. So, as this author correctly points out, and as Catholics clearly believe, only God can commission someone to be an Apostle.

Now, with all that said, let me draw an important distinction. While a Pope, or another bishop, may not succeed to the full office of an Apostle (e.g. the Apostle Peter), they do succeed to a dimension of the Apostolic office: and that is the episcopal dimension of the Apostolic office. In other words, all Apostles, as part of their Apostolic calling, were also bishops (e.g. “overseers” – pastors of the flock). Peter calls himself a “presbyter” among other (non-Apostle) presbyters in 1 Peter 5:1, as does the Apostle John in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1. Here, it is important to note that, at the time the New Testament was written, the terms “bishop” (“overseer”) and “presbyter” (“senior” / “elder” – which would eventually evolve into our English word “priest”) were still being used interchangeably (and this is more than understandable, given that all Catholic bishops are also priests).

And so, when the Bishop of Rome says that he is the successor of the Apostle Peter, or when the Bishop of Ephesus says that he is the successor of the Apostle John, they are referring to the episcopal offices held by Peter (1 Peter 5:1) and by John (2 John 1), and not to the full measure of their Apostolic ministries. And so, the author of our article simply misunderstands the Catholic teaching."

From above.

 

[benjohnson]

CTG - of late, in this and related threads, you seem to be making a strong case against the Papacy in many respects, while also reminding fellow Catholics that rejection of Pastor Aeternus is damnable when it is suggested that the evolution of the Papacy leaves doubt as to its present state.

In my opinion, it’s a fair argumentative tactic to point out a seemingly incompatible dichotomy.

Of course, Christianity has at it’s center the seemingly incompatible Trinity, so it we’re all a bit used to such issues.

In my opinion, it’s certainly possible for a Catholic to admit that there’s all sorts of irregularities with the history of the papal office and those that have sat on the throne and yet maintain a sincere and logical belief in papal infallibility.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In my opinion, it’s certainly possible for a Catholic to admit that there’s all sorts of irregularities with the history of the papal office and those that have sat on the throne and yet maintain a sincere and logical belief in papal infallibility.

I fully agree. However, it’s rare and unique to see both sides being argued simulaneously by a single Catholic source. Not trying to be critical, judgmental or otherwise - just trying to understand the premise.

 

[brumano]

Again, no doubt about that. But the Primacy of Peter is different form the Primacy of the Pope and even of Rome. There is also no conclusive evidence that Peter occupied the episcopate in Rome nor passed any authority to anyone including the Roman Bishop.

Also in Jn.ch 21 The Lord tells Peter alone Follow Me, but He was about to ascend to the place where He goes and they cannot follow now but will follow later, but His last words on Earth to Peter are Follow Me. When we follow Peter we see that he was following the Lord Himself who leads him finally to the place that he would never go on his own; Babylon the Great of his day which is Rome. There, by the Scripture not by Tradition he is the head of the Church as it existed, and there that he follows the Lord in death by crucifixion. So, the office from which he departed is his, and it had to be filled; just as while he was head of the Church from Jerusalem he decreed using Scriptures that the office of Judas Iscariot be filled, so he knew to take steps so that his own office be filled, that the details of how that was done either weren’t given or were lost to history does not make any real difference, the office was well established, the Popes are to follow Christ in the footsteps of St. Peter.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Also in Jn.ch 21 The Lord tells Peter alone Follow Me, but He was about to ascend to the place where He goes and they cannot follow now but will follow later, but His last words on Earth to Peter are Follow Me. When we follow Peter we see that he was following the Lord Himself who leads him finally to the place that he would never go on his own; Babylon the Great of his day which is Rome. There, by the Scripture not by Tradition he is the head of the Church as it existed, and there that he follows the Lord in death by crucifixion. So, the office from which he departed is his, and it had to be filled; just as while he was head of the Church from Jerusalem he decreed using Scriptures that the office of Judas Iscariot be filled, so he knew to take steps so that his own office be filled, that the details of how that was done either weren’t given or were lost to history does not make any real difference, the office was well established, the Popes are to follow Christ in the footsteps of St. Peter.

The second part of your post you are making an conjecture. Here’s the thing, when Judas left the 12 and killed himself, they elected someone into his office. The office of the 12 is unique, as promised by Christ that they would rule and judge the new Jerusalem. They are not to be replaced by anyone, they will occupy this same office in the end of time.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 19:28[/BIBLEDRB]

So who will occupy Peter’s throne if every Bishop of Rome from the First Century to the end of time occupied the same throne? To assume someone inherits Peter’s throne means others would also have to inherit the thrones of the other Apostles. But we all know that is not the case. Again, there is no evidence that Peter every passed any office or authority to anyone. Everything is conjecture and speculation, nothing is conclusive.

 

[Nicea325]

The second part of your post you are making an conjecture. Here’s the thing, when Judas left the 12 and killed himself, they elected someone into his office. The office of the 12 is unique, as promised by Christ that they would rule and judge the new Jerusalem. They are not to be replaced by anyone, they will occupy this same office in the end of time.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 19:28[/BIBLEDRB]

So who will occupy Peter’s throne if every Bishop of Rome from the First Century to the end of time occupied the same throne? To assume someone inherits Peter’s throne means others would also have to inherit the thrones of the other Apostles. But we all know that is not the case. Again, there is no evidence that Peter every passed any office or authority to anyone. Everything is conjecture and speculation, nothing is conclusive.

Okay,but why would Christ found an episcopal office and want to cease with the 12? Why would Christ bestow them authority only to later cease? How is the office to continue, if it ceases at one point in time? I seriously doubt Christ intended it to cease. Cannot edify God’s kingdom on earth if a cxertain office ceases to an end. A far cry from speculation and conjecture. God is neither conjecture or speculation.

God Bless

 

[ConstantineTG]

Okay,but why would Christ found an episcopal office and want to cease with the 12? Why would Christ bestow them authority only to later cease? How is the office to continue, if it ceases at one point in time? I seriously doubt Christ intended it to cease. Cannot edify God’s kingdom on earth if a cxertain office ceases to an end. A far cry from speculation and conjecture. God is neither conjecture or speculation.

God Bless

Their authority will never cease, that is why they have the 12 thrones at the end of the ages.

 

[Nicea325]

Their authority will never cease, that is why they have the 12 thrones at the end of the ages.

Precisely why the CC & EO have Apostolic Succession…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Their authority will never cease

You see here you admit the authority is passed, yet you seem to claim otherwise in the other thread.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Precisely why the CC & EO have Apostolic Succession…

You see here you admit the authority is passed, yet you seem to claim otherwise in the other thread.

Where did I say the authority is passed? Again you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said. I said the authority will never cease. The authority of the Apostles are theirs and theirs alone, and they have it today as they have it in the First Century, and they will have it in the age to come.

Nowhere did I say that the authority is passed on to anyone. In fact, given this passage, its is not highly unlikely that Peter passed on his throne to anyone given there are 12 thrones. So what about the thrones of the other Apostles? Also, its apparent that the 12 thrones are equal, none above the other.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Where did I say the authority is passed? Again you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said. I said the authority will never cease. The authority of the Apostles are theirs and theirs alone, and they have it today as they have it in the First Century, and they will have it in the age to come.

Nowhere did I say that the authority is passed on to anyone. In fact, given this passage, its is not highly unlikely that Peter passed on his throne to anyone given there are 12 thrones. So what about the thrones of the other Apostles? Also, its apparent that the 12 thrones are equal, none above the other.

So how did the Church continue after Christ ascended in glory and the Apostles died? What is this concept of Apostolic (not merely episcopal) succession that is central to Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

What do the 12 Thrones represent?

 

[ConstantineTG]

So how did the Church continue after Christ ascended in glory and the Apostles died? What is this concept of Apostolic (not merely episcopal) succession that is central to Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

I’ve answered this so many times in this thread. But for you, here we go again:

Apostolic successors doesn’t mean they are what the Apostles are. The Apostles occupied a different authority in the Church that cannot be matched by any other person outside this circle. While the number of Apostles grew beyond the 12 later on (such as St. Paul and a few others mentioned in the Epistles), beyond these Apostles no one else were called Apostles. Their authority and place in the Church is their own, no one else would own that. If Matthias’ inheritance of Judas’ office was recorded in Acts, why not Peter’s passing of his own authority to someone else? And why are we affixed with Peter? What about the office of the other 11?

What do the 12 Thrones represent?

It is not a representation, it is the promise of Christ to the 12 that was with him during his earthly ministry. Even St. Paul will not receive a throne. Because of the betrayal of Judas, Matthias will sit on the throne that was set for him.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Apostolic successors doesn’t mean they are what the Apostles are. The Apostles occupied a different authority in the Church that cannot be matched by any other person outside this circle.

Then what exactly is Apostolic succession? The discussion is as yet silent on that point.

While the number of Apostles grew beyond the 12 later on (such as St. Paul and a few others mentioned in the Epistles), beyond these Apostles no one else were called Apostles.

Indeed. There are saints called equal to the Apostles who lived centuries later.

Their authority and place in the Church is their own, no one else would own that.

OK. then who runs the Church today, and how are they empowered to do so?

And why are we affixed with Peter? What about the office of the other 11?

We’re not, as were not there yet. This applies to all twelve.

It is not a representation, it is the promise of Christ to the 12 that was with him during his earthly ministry.

The 12 Thrones are representative of the new Israel, one nation with a head or partiarch of each of the tribes. The only difference is that lineage in the Church cannot be passed through biological means to sons. A manner of preserving the patrimony had to be part of the plan.

 

[Hesychios]

Then what exactly is Apostolic succession? The discussion is as yet silent on that point.

There are two kinds of Apostolic succession in discussions about church governance.

But I agree with Constantine here. The Apostles are not counted as bishops exactly, but apart from that are messengers sent by Christ Himself. These men were church planters, and they did not just leave bishops in one place or another, but entire communities in many places.

This is important but usually overlooked. Succeeding bishops were elected by the communities they were to serve, that is very clear. It was the communities that were holy, the communities which raised the next generation of bishops.

In any given place it is likely that a bishop did not know who his successor might be, he might have never even met the man. However if the man was from the same town he would likely have had some influence on the man’s training and practice. It’s just that he doesn’t know who this successor would be, and does not make him a bishop.

So when we speak of Apostolic succession in terms of a certain See, we are not speaking of one man passing the torch to another like some relay race. It is an office, and the office belongs to the church of the city. When the officeholder returns to God, the office passes back to the community, and the community puts another man in place. There have been times when a church would takes years to find another man suitable. Then of course the consecrating bishops have to approve of him or it’s a no-go.

It seems that later the selection of a bishop devolved to the other bishops in the neighboring churches, which constitute the greater synod, while clergy participation and especially lay participation diminished considerably.

The true Apostolic succession is what we think of as the sacrament, which passes from one bishop (or actually a minimum of three together) to a new man by the laying on of hands. But usually this is done not for a bishop to consecrate his own successor, but the successor of some other man in some other city who has gone to God. Sacramental episcopal succession does not pass down in a straight line in any one city. It weaves in and out like the weft of a fabric.

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/i...miH7Sn7xWzm_O3hkFAalE0OR0bGREpKz2Az6dBtkm54Dg

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then what exactly is Apostolic succession? The discussion is as yet silent on that point.

Hesychios has provided an excellent explanation. I would only take away from it if I say more.

Indeed. There are saints called equal to the Apostles who lived centuries later.

And it is an honorific title, not that they are Apostles themselves. Unless you believe that St. Constantine the Great is equal in importance and dignity to Peter, Paul, John and James.

OK. then who runs the Church today, and how are they empowered to do so?

The Apostles appointed bishops to run the Churches. But the bishops are not Apostles themselves. They are successors to the Apostles in the sense that there can be no more Apostles, so they succeed in their place.

We’re not, as were not there yet. This applies to all twelve.

I mean, why are we affixed with Peter’s office. The office of the eleven, where did it go? If Apostolic offices are meant to be passed, why do we not know where the 11 are yet we know where Peter’s is.

The 12 Thrones are representative of the new Israel, one nation with a head or partiarch of each of the tribes. The only difference is that lineage in the Church cannot be passed through biological means to sons. A manner of preserving the patrimony had to be part of the plan.

But we have thousands of bishops today, not 12. So who is the successor of whom? So is Peter the Levitical sort, that the Pope can only come from his “tribe”?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I mean, why are we affixed with Peter’s office.

I distinctly said “we’re not there yet” …

Have fun with this - I’m going back to the sideline :compcoff:

 

[ConstantineTG]

I distinctly said “we’re not there yet” …

Have fun with this - I’m going back to the sideline :compcoff:

Isn’t that a fair question? If Peter passed on his office, what of the other 11? We’ve never heard of it throughout history.

 

[Marybeloved]

What other office did the other 11 have other than being apostles (which cannot be passed on), bishops (which was passed on) or the priesthood? The only other office pertaining to the government of the church was Peter’s. I don’t recall that any other existed.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What other office did the other 11 have other than being apostles (which cannot be passed on), bishops (which was passed on) or the priesthood? The only other office pertaining to the government of the church was Peter’s. I don’t recall that any other existed.

But how is Peter’s office (that of primacy) passed from pope to pope?

 

[ConstantineTG]

But how is Peter’s office (that of primacy) passed from pope to pope?

The authority is on Peter’s chair, and whoever is chosen to sit on it.