What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[ConstantineTG]

… well of course not. The “ends of the earth” were not even truly known back then.

That is the argument that universal jurisdiction is borne out of necessity. A comparison of the type and durability of the unity supported by the developed models - Catholic and Orthodox - in the modern context becomes possible, if one is to fairly consider that the realities of today are much different.

Yes, that is why for me the debate between the Orthodox and Catholics should not center around universality. Universality is accepted on both sides in one form or another and neither is the ecclesiastical model the Church has in her early years. So the Orthodox cannot deny universality as they have a universal ecclesiology within each Autocephalous Church today. But the Catholic Church also should look long and hard on claims of universal ordinary jurisdiction which also doesn’t have much history.

 

[mercytruth]

That should be well appreciated, yet it is recognized that confusion still exists among some on the meaning of Apostolic succession. Absent such, the debate would once again pick up with the role of the episcopacy in preserving the unity of the Church. The question as to whether Peter was given the unique charge to preserve the unity of the Twelve and the others in the Apostolic Church then comes into play. If one accepts that he had this role, one asks whether or not this responsibility was passed on to his specific successors, to the episcopacy at large, or both.

The Apostles could not have lived forever, and the Church would need established leadership and the means to pass responsibility on to successors, as well. While no one can deny the unique character of the Apostles and their personal charge, even mere human logic would have to consider that the service they provided to the Church would have to continue through the service of others. The successors would have to preserve the Deposit of Faith and the unity of the Church, as well as ensuring is stability and growth (cannot forget the evangelical aspect).

There are several early church documents which explain how Jesus Christ instructed his apostles on the choosing and ordaining of bishops once the apostles had died. If you are interested I can give citations.

God’s peace.

Micah

 

[ConstantineTG]

There are several early church documents which explain how Jesus Christ instructed his apostles on the choosing and ordaining of bishops once the apostles had died. If you are interested I can give citations.

God’s peace.

Micah

Are they the same as those found in St. Paul’s Epistles?

 

[mercytruth]

Are they the same as those found in St. Paul’s Epistles?

No, they can be found in St.Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, in Bishop Cyprian’s writings, and in the Constitutions of the Apostles. Sadly, the tradition of the choosing and ordination of bishops that was handed down from Jesus Christ and his apostles has not been kept for a very long time.

God’s peace

micah

 

[mercytruth]

For those who are interested, I am giving one citation per posting.

St.Clement’s epistle to the church of Corinth, Chap. XLIV

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, **with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot **be justly dismissed from the ministry”

ww.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

God’s peace

Micah

 

[mercytruth]

Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, 67th epistle:

"For that unworthy persons are sometimes ordained, not according to the will of God, but according to human presumption, and that those things which do not come of a legitimate and righteous ordination are displeasing to God, God Himself manifests by Hosea the prophet, saying, “They have set up for themselves a king, but not by me.” Hosea 8:4

1. For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. And the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct. And this also, we see, was done by you in the ordination of our colleague Sabinus; so that, by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, and by the sentence of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, and who had written letters to you concerning him, the episcopate was conferred upon him, and hands were imposed on him in the place of Basilides."

albini.net/newadvent/fathers/050667.htm

God’s peace.

Micah

 

[mercytruth]

The Constitutions of the Apostles, Book VIII, Sec.2

But now our discourse hastens as to the principal part, that is, the constitution of ecclesiastical affairs, that so, when you have learned this constitution from us, you who are ordained bishops by us at the command of Christ, may perform all things according to the commands delivered you, knowing that he that hears us hears Christ, and he that hears Christ hears His God and Father, Luke 10:16 to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Concerning Ordinations.
IV. Wherefore we, the twelve apostles of the Lord, who are now together, give you in charge those divine constitutions concerning every ecclesiastical form, there being present with us Paul the chosen vessel, our fellow-apostle, and James the bishop, and the rest of the presbyters, and the seven deacons. In the first place, therefore, I Peter say, that a bishop to be ordained is to be, as we have already, all of us, appointed, unblameable in all things, a select person, chosen by the whole people, who, when he is named and approved, let the people assemble, with the presbytery and bishops that are present, on the Lord’s day, and let them give their consent. And let the principal of the bishops ask the presbytery and people whether this be the person whom they desire for their ruler. And if they give their consent, let him ask further whether he has a good testimony from all men as to his worthiness for so great and glorious an authority; whether all things relating to his piety towards God be right; whether justice towards men has been observed by him; whether the affairs of his family have been well ordered by him; whether he has been unblameable in the course of his life. And if all the assembly together do according to truth, and not according to prejudice, witness that he is such a one, let them the third time, as before God the Judge, and Christ, the Holy Ghost being also present, as well as all the holy and ministering spirits, ask again whether he be truly worthy of this ministry, that so “in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” Matthew 18:16 And if they agree the third time that he is worthy, let them all be demanded their vote; and when they all give it willingly, let them be heard. And silence being made, let one of the principal bishops, together with two others, stand near to the altar, the rest of the bishops and presbyters praying silently, and the deacons holding the divine Gospels open upon the head of him that is to be ordained, and say to God thus :—

newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm

God’s peace

Micah

 

[ConstantineTG]

Of course we forget that part that it is the Church (ie. the people, the laity) who choose the bishops back then. And this is found in St. Paul’s Epistles as well. Other bishops are called in only to consecrate the man to become a bishop, not to make the selection.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Universal ordinary jurisdiction comes back to the first among equals debate. Where is this indicated in the Ecumenical Councils, I searched and could’t find it? This is a proposed theory by the EO to the CC which is immediately acceptable to the EO. While this is understood as is the link below, I don’t see this in the Councils.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPrimus_inter_pares&ei=AlYiUNbOFMiJ0QGh6IGYAg&usg=AFQjCNG9IbDP5bkFw898EtkpMW0L9dqGbw&sig2=W0adSER_MQPuX9u2bjGdXQ

If we look at this defined; "Primus inter pares (Greek: Πρῶτος μεταξὺ ἴσων (protos metaxy ison), English: the first among equals or first among peers) is a Latin phrase describing the most senior person of a group sharing the same rank or office.

When not used in reference to a specific title, it may indicate that the person so described is formally equal, but looked upon as an authority of special importance by their peers. However, in some cases it may also be used to indicate that while the person described appears to be an equal, they actually are the group’s unofficial or hidden leader, and thus the reference to this person being “equal” to the rest is intended to project mutual respect and camaraderie" (from above).

It seems to me it is a contradiction within itself. How is one used in reference as equal but looked upon as authority. Though I do believe is gives a more proper understanding of the Bishops relationship to each other. Basically in history it has been used in the Temporal realm. The term is used with reference to the Roman Emperors’ way of reducing the appearance of dictatorship (which was particularly important during the early Roman Empire to appease those who may have longed for a return to the old Roman Republic.

So when we say First among Equals, what are we really saying different than what already is stated. Mind you now this issue preceeded V-I and dates to the Schism.

 

[mercytruth]

Universal ordinary jurisdiction comes back to the first among equals debate. Where is this indicated in the Ecumenical Councils, I searched and could’t find it? This is a proposed theory by the EO to the CC which is immediately acceptable to the EO. While this is understood as is the link below, I don’t see this in the Councils.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPrimus_inter_pares&ei=AlYiUNbOFMiJ0QGh6IGYAg&usg=AFQjCNG9IbDP5bkFw898EtkpMW0L9dqGbw&sig2=W0adSER_MQPuX9u2bjGdXQ

If we look at this defined; "Primus inter pares (Greek: Πρῶτος μεταξὺ ἴσων (protos metaxy ison), English: the first among equals or first among peers) is a Latin phrase describing the most senior person of a group sharing the same rank or office.

When not used in reference to a specific title, it may indicate that the person so described is formally equal, but looked upon as an authority of special importance by their peers. However, in some cases it may also be used to indicate that while the person described appears to be an equal, they actually are the group’s unofficial or hidden leader, and thus the reference to this person being “equal” to the rest is intended to project mutual respect and camaraderie" (from above).

It seems to me it is a contradiction within itself. How is one used in reference as equal but looked upon as authority. Though I do believe is gives a more proper understanding of the Bishops relationship to each other. Basically in history it has been used in the Temporal realm. The term is used with reference to the Roman Emperors’ way of reducing the appearance of dictatorship (which was particularly important during the early Roman Empire to appease those who may have longed for a return to the old Roman Republic.

So when we say First among Equals, what are we really saying different than what already is stated. Mind you now this issue preceeded V-I and dates to the Schism.

Would we be having this discussion if the West and the East had followed the tradition that was given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ, and his apostles for the choosing and ordination of bishops?

This is one tradition that no one follows any more.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Would we be having this discussion if the West and the East had followed the tradition that was given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ, and his apostles for the choosing and ordination of bishops?

This is one tradition that no one follows any more.

Micah, what specifically do you mean?

 

[mercytruth]

Micah, what specifically do you mean?

Posts # 353, 354, 355

God’s peace.

Micah

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Posts # 353, 354, 355

Those are the thoughts of others, which I suppose you now take as your own, but that still leaves room for interpretation.

Are you suggesting, for example, based on the bold typed statements (particularly in post #355), that the laity should appoint their bishop?

BTW - there are still vestiges of this “tradition” in the ritual of enthronement, particularly in the East. The people proclaim “Axios!” (“Worthy!”), confirming their acceptance of the candidate. While I suppose no one might consider this a real opportunity to reject an appointed bishop, there is nonetheless an affirmative, public acclamation made at the enthronement. This is in fact very consistent with the highlighted quote in post #355.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Universal ordinary jurisdiction comes back to the first among equals debate. Where is this indicated in the Ecumenical Councils, I searched and could’t find it? This is a proposed theory by the EO to the CC which is immediately acceptable to the EO. While this is understood as is the link below, I don’t see this in the Councils.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPrimus_inter_pares&ei=AlYiUNbOFMiJ0QGh6IGYAg&usg=AFQjCNG9IbDP5bkFw898EtkpMW0L9dqGbw&sig2=W0adSER_MQPuX9u2bjGdXQ

If we look at this defined; "Primus inter pares (Greek: Πρῶτος μεταξὺ ἴσων (protos metaxy ison), English: the first among equals or first among peers) is a Latin phrase describing the most senior person of a group sharing the same rank or office.

When not used in reference to a specific title, it may indicate that the person so described is formally equal, but looked upon as an authority of special importance by their peers. However, in some cases it may also be used to indicate that while the person described appears to be an equal, they actually are the group’s unofficial or hidden leader, and thus the reference to this person being “equal” to the rest is intended to project mutual respect and camaraderie" (from above).

It seems to me it is a contradiction within itself. How is one used in reference as equal but looked upon as authority. Though I do believe is gives a more proper understanding of the Bishops relationship to each other. Basically in history it has been used in the Temporal realm. The term is used with reference to the Roman Emperors’ way of reducing the appearance of dictatorship (which was particularly important during the early Roman Empire to appease those who may have longed for a return to the old Roman Republic.

So when we say First among Equals, what are we really saying different than what already is stated. Mind you now this issue preceeded V-I and dates to the Schism.

And that is the entirety of the problem, isn’t it? That “First Among Equals” is seen as authority. That primacy is always equated with authority when it is not. Is the Governor General of the United Nations a person of authority over the different heads of state? Is he “president of the world”?

 

[mercytruth]

Those are the thoughts of others, which I suppose you now take as your own, but that still leaves room for interpretation.

Are you suggesting, for example, based on the bold typed statements (particularly in post #355), that the laity should appoint their bishop?

BTW - there are still vestiges of this “tradition” in the ritual of enthronement, particularly in the East. The people proclaim “Axios!” (“Worthy!”), confirming their acceptance of the candidate. While I suppose no one might consider this a real opportunity to reject an appointed bishop, there is nonetheless an affirmative, public acclamation made at the enthronement. This is in fact very consistent with the highlighted quote in post #355.

These are not the thoughts of others. These are the divine ordinances that Bishop Clement of Rome, and Bishop Cyprian of Carthage say were given to them by Jesus Christ and the apostles.

I am not suggesting the bishops were ‘appointed’ by the laity, but chosen. We see evidence of this choosing by the laity in Acts 6:

"And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.

These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them."

God’s peace

Micah

 

[ByzCathCantor]

These are not the thoughts of others.

They are not your own words.

I am not suggesting the bishops were ‘appointed’ by the laity, but chosen. We see evidence of this choosing by the laity in Acts 6:

"And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.

These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them."

Good quotation, but the seven that were chosen were deacons, not bishops, Stephen the First Martyr among them.

 

[mercytruth]

They are not your own words.

Good quotation, but the seven that were chosen were deacons, not bishops, Stephen the First Martyr among them.

The principle was laid by the apostles. According to St.Clement, bishop and marytr of Rome, and St.Cyprian, bishop and martyr of Carthage this principal applied to the choosing of bishops.

I am quoting the final comments of the Constitutions of the Apostles, Book VIII. and for three reasons:

First of all, the choosing and ordination of bishops was only known to the bishops, therefore we have only the record of Bishop Clement and Bishop Cyprian to support this divine ordinance for choosing and ordaining bishops.

Second, I would not be quoting from this book containing ‘mysteries’ if the disunity in Christ’s Church is not related to this warning of Clement’s. The prayer of Jesus Christ is for unity in his church. We must examine the possible explanations for why there is not unity.

Third, there are several canons regarding the ordination of bishops that were broken by the West and the East among the canonical rules listed in this warning of Clement’s.

The quotation:

**and the Constitutions dedicated to you the bishops by me Clement, in eight books; which it is not fit to publish before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us the Apostles.

Let these canonical rules be established by us for you, O you bishops; and if you continue to observe them, you shall be saved, and shall have peace; but if you be disobedient, you shall be punished, and have everlasting war one with another, and undergo a penalty suitable to your disobedience. **

newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm

God’s peace

Micah

 

[GaryTaylor]

And that is the entirety of the problem, isn’t it? That “First Among Equals”

From the Church’s perspective the issue seems to reside exactly there, according to Pope Benedict also. However, the last comment by him I believe was 2010.

 

[Marybeloved]

“Catholic” was not a noun at first; it was (and for the Orthodox Church, still is) an adjective. See the Online Etymology Dictionary, which gives its history as follows:

catholic (adj.)
mid-14c., “of the doctrines of the ancient Church,” literally “universally accepted,” from Fr. catholique, from L.L. catholicus “universal, general,” from Gk. katholikos, from phrase kath’ holou “on the whole, in general,” from kata “about” + gen. of holos “whole” (see safe (adj.)). Applied to the Church in Rome c.1554, after the Reformation began. General sense of “of interest to all, universal” is from 1550s. As a noun, attested from 1560s.

Early uses of the term were translations from the Greek (into Latin, French, etc. as above). As you can see, it didn’t become a noun referring to a particular church until the 1560s (as a result of the Reformation in Europe). When we, as Orthodox people, say in the Creed that “we believe in one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”, we are saying that we are the Church which is catholic, in the original sense of the term – that we preserve the doctrine that is ancient and universally accepted as it was in the days of the apostles who taught that same doctrine to the believers in Palestine, Greece, Syria, Asia Minor, etc. (back when they were “the church at Corinth”, “the church at Philippi”, “the church at Rome”, “the church at Antioch”, etc.) These were all the same church, differing only in their geographical and cultural respects (the cities being largely Greek-speaking, while the common people in the villages spoke Aramaic, Coptic, or whatever the local language was). And what unites the Church? Its faith. I am pretty sure that Rome agrees with this idea, despite seeing itself differently than the other apostolic churches see it.

I don’t understand what you mean to show by all this. You said in the statements I quoted that the Church was not universal, only the faith was. Catholic being a noun has nothing to do with it since it’s NOT a noun! My basic English tells me that when you say “tall man”, that man is the noun there, and tall is the adjective-description of the noun, so clearly, just like the words, One, Holy and Apostolic, the word Catholic is also descriptive (that is, an adjective) of the One noun in that statement- which is Church. And that description has not been given to the faith, as you claimed, but to the Church. The first paragraph you gave gives the origins of the term and the meaning of universal and whole is there. What I’m saying simply is that it is the church, not simply the faith, that this “adjective” refers to.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t understand what you mean to show by all this.

Then you need to re-read my original post (338) and your reply that prompted the response you’ve just quoted, because I’m not saying what you think I’m saying. I’m not a Roman Catholic and I do not share your ecclesiology.

You said in the statements I quoted that the Church was not universal, only the faith was.

What I actually said in post 338 is that the Church has always been considered “the Church at _____ (a particular geographic location)”, with the common faith being what makes them the same church no matter what particular location we’re talking about. Why you think this means that there’s some sort of separation between the faith and the Church itself is beyond me. It’s certainly not anything that I wrote. I’m talking about WHY we can call the church “universal”, i.e., catholic. If it weren’t for the same Orthodox faith, we wouldn’t be talking about the Church. There were parallel hierarchies of Arian bishops for hundreds of years in many different places, but the fact that the Arians were found throughout the world doesn’t make them the Church, does it? Of course it doesn’t. They didn’t teach the true faith.

Catholic being a noun has nothing to do with it since it’s NOT a noun!

It is when you’re talking about it as you had been in post 339, when you wrote:

I find this hard to believe considering that the name “The Catholic Church” was applied to the body of believers pretty early.

Names of things are nouns. When I pointed out that “Catholic” was originally an adjective, that means that “Catholic” was originally a description, not a name. So your post about how “the name ‘the Catholic Church’” was applied very early on misses what “Catholic church” would have meant way back when, when it was a translation of the Greek and meant “universally accepted”. What was universally accepted? Was it a name/label, or the doctrines of the faith themselves? The definition given says it was the doctrine. And I’m saying it still is. This is why the Orthodox Church still calls itself “catholic”. We don’t mean “we’re in communion with Rome”; we mean “we hold to the faith that is universally accepted, as in the ancient church” (when everybody, east and west, used “Catholic” in this manner). The way in which most Roman Catholics use the term, to mean simply “universal” in the sense of “found in every location” is certainly part of it (as I’ve already written, the church IS geographically based by virtue of the fact that its members live in many different places), but it developed quite a while later, by analogy to the original “throughout the whole; universally accepted” definition.

My basic English tells me that when you say “tall man”, that man is the noun there, and tall is the adjective-description of the noun, so clearly, just like the words, One, Holy and Apostolic, the word Catholic is also descriptive (that is, an adjective) of the One noun in that statement- which is Church.

Yes, indeed. We agree here, but remember that I was responding to a post from you that said “the name ‘the Catholic Church’” – this isn’t a name for any particular church, or at least it wasn’t until the Protestant reformation applied to the church in Rome as a name. It was and is a descriptor.

And that description has not been given to the faith, as you claimed, but to the Church.

I don’t understand why you are making a distinction between the Church and its faith. The Church certainly doesn’t. And, yes, it does apply to the faith of the Church. That’s what it is actually talking about. Again, “The Catholic Church” wasn’t a label for a particular church until Protestants applied it to the Roman church in order to distinguish themselves from it. The churches outside of Europe still use the term according to the old, original usage. Even in the official name of the Assyrian Church of the East, who haven’t been in communion with any other church for many, many centuries before the reformation, you’ll find the Syriac version of this word: ܥܕܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܘܫܠܝܚܝܬܐ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܝ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ ܕܐܬܘܪܝܐ‎ ʻIttā Qaddishtā w-Shlikhāitā Qattoliqi d-Madnĕkhā d-Āturāyē. This should give you some idea of the usage of the term outside of Roman Catholicism and its communion.

The first paragraph you gave gives the origins of the term and the meaning of universal and whole is there. What I’m saying simply is that it is the church, not simply the faith, that this “adjective” refers to.

I have no idea what “not simply the faith” means. The faith is the faith of the Church, not something separate from it (it is not just any faith, in the way that some people may have faith in things that the Church does not teach). That said, it seems we are in agreement but just talking past each other at this point.

My only point is that “the Catholic Church” is not the name of any particular church, but the description of the Church in any particular location which is catholic (adj), that is to say, which holds to the faith that is universally accepted as in the ancient church of the three ecumenical councils (in keeping with OO ecclesiology, as I do).