What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[josie_L]

Why not? Is not one piece of the Eucharist the fullness of Christ?

Eucharistic ecclesiology is true but incomplete without acknowledging the role of the apostles and their successors within this eucharistic communion. From the moment of its inception we see that the Church is universal (rather than simply a federation of independent local churches) in that:

"Luke expresses with this image the fact that at the moment of her birth (Pentecost), the Church was already catholic, already a world Church. Luke thus rules out a conception in which a local Church first arose in Jerusalem and then became the base for the gradual establishment of other local Churches that eventually grew into a federation. Luke tells us that the reverse is true: what first exists is the one Church, the Church that speaks in all tongues - the ecclesia universalis; she then generates Church in the most diverse locales, which nonetheless are all always embodiments of the one and only Church. The temporal and ontological priority lies with the universal Church; a Church that was not catholic would not even have ecclesial reality. . . "

I took this quote from a book entitled “Called To Communion: Understanding The Church Today” by Pope Benedict XVI. In it he explains that the Church through the apostles was already exhibiting catholicity (a worldly mission/church), one example of this catholicity is seen through the epistles of Paul to the many local churches, i.e., a universal Church (one faith, one baptism, one Lord. . . ).

“. . .the ancient Church never consisted in a static juxtaposition of local Churches. Catholicity, concretely realized in many forms, belongs to her essence from the very outset. In the apostolic period it is above all the figure of the apostle itself that stands outside the scope of the local principle. The apostle is not the bishop of a community but rather a missionary for the whole Church. The figure of the apostle is the strongest refutation of every purely local conception of the Church. He expresses in his person the universal Church; he is her representative, and no local Church can claim him for herself alone. Paul carried out this function of unity by means of letters and a network of messengers. These letters are an exercise of his catholic ministry of unity, which can be accounted for only by the apostle’s authority in the Church universal. If one considers the lists of salutations in the epistles, one can further observe how mobile ancient society was; we meet Paul’s friends now here, now there. For them being Christian meant belonging to a developing divine convocation that was one and the same wherever they found it.”

The bishops during the apostolic period were “bearers of responsibility for the local Churches” but their position was “subordinate to the catholic authority of the apostles.” However, in the postapostolic Church the bishops became successors to the apostles, thus enriching/deepening their position of bishop to one of universality/catholicity, again let me quote from Pope Benedict’s book:

“The fact that in the difficult formative process of the postapostolic Church the place of the apostles was also finally adjudged to them implies that they now assumed a responsibility whose scope transcended the local principle. It means that the catholic and missionary flame must not be extinguished even in this new situation. **The Church cannot become a static juxtapositon of essentially self-sufficient local Churches. The Church must remain “apostolic”, that is to say, the dynamism of unity must also mold her structure. ** The epithet “successors of the apostles” removes the bishop beyond the purely local and makes it his responsibility to ensure that the two dimensions of communio — the vertical and the horizontal ----remain undivided.”

So there is more than eucharistic communion that binds us (body of Christ), i.e., membership or communion with each other through our bishops is also a form of communion which cannot be disregarded. In fact,

“. . . in the fourth and fifth centuries the Donatists began to create a sort of separate African Church, which no longer wished to remain in communion with the whole Catholica, Optatus of Milevis reacted uncompromisingly against this drift toward “two Churches”. In contrast he emphasized that communion with all the provinces was the hallmark of the true Church.”

“membership in the Church, is by its essence universal. Whoever belongs to one local Church belongs to all. The consciousness of this fact gave rise to the institution of letters of communion . . .which served to secure the unity of the communio and to draw clear boundaries over against the pretensions of false communions. Whenever a Christian went on a journey, he carried such a proof of membership; with it he could find lodging in every Christian community around the world and, as the center of this hospitality, communion in the Body of the Lord. . . In order for the system to function, the bishops for their part had to keep up-to-date lists of the more important Churches around the world with which they were in communion. . . . Here we see a very concrete way in which the bishop is the ligature of catholicity. He keeps his Church connected with the others and thus embodies the apostolic and, therefore, the catholic element of the Church.”

In essence, the Church was never fragmented (it could not be described as such no matter how you defined it), as the apostles united as one in their worldly mission, demonstrated the universality/catholicity of the Church from its inception.

 

[josie_L]

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”?

Primacy within the Church is equated with authority, and there`s no other way to view this as a Catholic.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Primacy within the Church is equated with authority, and there`s no other way to view this as a Catholic.

The problem is that view never existed in the early Church. Being a leader doesn’t mean the others are subordinate to you. You know, that is why Jesus washed the feet of the Apostles and all.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here’s one image that depicts the Orthodox opinion on the Pope…

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/417406_368985293171439_350652699_n.jpg

 

[dvdjs]

Here’s one image that depicts the Orthodox opinion on the Pope…

Perhaps “an” opinion on the Pope. And on “Orthodoxy”. Too bad such opinions are not better rooted in reality.

I wonder if such a claim can be found in a language other than English.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Perhaps “an” opinion on the Pope. And on “Orthodoxy”. Too bad such opinions are not better rooted in reality.

I wonder if such a claim can be found in a language other than English.

That is the belief of the Orthodox in general. That Papal Authority is something the Roman Catholics made up in later centuries. It is rooted in reality, at least from their perspective.

 

[dvdjs]

That is the belief of the Orthodox in general. That Papal Authority is something the Roman Catholics made up in later centuries. It is rooted in reality, at least from their perspective.

I am skeptical of your assertion of the generality of the view encapsulated in that poster. Apart for polemicists, most Orthodox know understand history better.

Reality has no perspectives. The reality is that there has been a Papacy as long as there has been such as thing that one would call Orthodoxy - and much longer than there was a Orthodoxy that was somehow separated from Rome. And certainly there was a Roman tradition before there was a Constantinopolitan one.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am skeptical of your assertion of the generality of the view encapsulated in that poster. Apart for polemicists, most Orthodox know understand history better.

Well, from what I have read on the matter, that is the Orthodox belief. That the authority of the Papacy is something that came much later. We can argue all we want about it, but that is how they view that matter. Nothing we say or do will change that.

Reality has no perspectives. The reality is that there has been a Papacy as long as there has been such as thing that one would call Orthodoxy - and much longer than there was a Orthodoxy that was somehow separated from Rome. And certainly there was a Roman tradition before there was a Constantinopolitan one.

And that is reality to them. Have you ever stopped and asked if our reality is the one that is the result of perspective and perhaps we need to look at the subject more objectively? Or did you just accept what is said blindly?

 

[Marybeloved]

Authority is service, not subordination. If it were subordination, then the laity are not served by Bishops and Priests but are merely subordinate to them. Also I dont think that the example from Christ suits the context as I’m sure that no Christian would ever in their right mind claim that they were not happily subordinate to the Lord and subject to his authority just because he washed the feet of his disciples! .

This attitude that you can be equals in the Christian sense only if and as long as no one else has greater authority than you, or even authority over you has no place in any church that calls itself Christian, nor even the whole judeo-christian tradition evident in scripture. From the ancient offices of the prophets, priests, high-priests, kings, judges, the sanhedrin, to the new priesthood of Christ, Apostles, Bishops, and yes, st Peter’s office.

When Christ said “Feed/tend my sheep/lambs”, he was speaking about service and giving the authority to render that service commanded. The attitude of equating authority with ‘being made smaller’ than that person is not Christian, its wordly at best, indicative of pride at worst. Those with authority in the church sacrifice so much in order to live their whole lives serving us.They are not on permanent vacation but rather on permanent duty, attending to so much, all day. I dont understand this attitude at all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I dont understand this attitude at all.

I don’t either.

In the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ the “elect” are not even mentioned, they “serve” the body.

Whats lost is the meaning of authority/justice correctly applied.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, from what I have read on the matter, that is the Orthodox belief. That the authority of the Papacy is something that came much later. We can argue all we want about it, but that is how they view that matter. Nothing we say or do will change that.

Where did you read this? Do you have a source please? “They” has no meaning in the context your using it. Who are “they” exactly? Broad sweeping statement which cannot be substanciated and is contradictory to what many from the East believe on this thread alone. And its not a matter of saying or doing anything to change “they”. Its accepting reality which you have confused below.

And that is reality to them. Have you ever stopped and asked if our reality is the one that is the result of perspective and perhaps we need to look at the subject more objectively? Or did you just accept what is said blindly?

Question is have you?

Reality isn’t how you “think” things are, or how you would “like” things to be, or “want” things to be. Its how it REALLY is. And there really is a Pope in Rome who speaks for the Christian World, like it or not. And many don’t like it, nor what he has to say, nothing new. And he has been their a very long time. Perhaps your arguement about reality would be valid if reality wasn’t working against you for 2000 years to present.

 

[mercytruth]

Where did you read this? Do you have a source please? “They” has no meaning in the context your using it. Who are “they” exactly? Broad sweeping statement which cannot be substanciated and is contradictory to what many from the East believe on this thread alone. And its not a matter of saying or doing anything to change “they”. Its accepting reality which you have confused below.

Question is have you?

Reality isn’t how you “think” things are, or how you would “like” things to be, or “want” things to be. Its how it REALLY is. And there really is a Pope in Rome who speaks for the Christian World, like it or not. And many don’t like it, nor what he has to say, nothing new. And he has been their a very long time. Perhaps your arguement about reality would be valid if reality wasn’t working against you for 2000 years to present.

Let’s be honest. Can bishops and popes that were chosen by kings, emperors and nobility really represent the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ?

The model of Roman Catholic Christianity that one can look toward is the one where the monks of monasteries chose their own abbots to be their spiritual rulers over them.

Anything other than that, is contrary to the ordinances established by Jesus Christ and his apostles as spoken of by Bishop Clement of Rome, Bishop Cyprian of Carthage and Book VIII of the Constitutions of the Apostles.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[ConstantineTG]

Where did you read this? Do you have a source please? “They” has no meaning in the context your using it. Who are “they” exactly? Broad sweeping statement which cannot be substanciated and is contradictory to what many from the East believe on this thread alone. And its not a matter of saying or doing anything to change “they”. Its accepting reality which you have confused below.

Question is have you?

Reality isn’t how you “think” things are, or how you would “like” things to be, or “want” things to be. Its how it REALLY is. And there really is a Pope in Rome who speaks for the Christian World, like it or not. And many don’t like it, nor what he has to say, nothing new. And he has been their a very long time. Perhaps your arguement about reality would be valid if reality wasn’t working against you for 2000 years to present.

I’ve mentioned the book half-a-dozen times on this thread, but anyway, here you go

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Where is your proof to your claim? Aside from all-caps words?

 

[mercytruth]

I’ve mentioned the book half-a-dozen times on this thread, but anyway, here you go

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0881411256.jpg

Where is your proof to your claim? Aside from all-caps words?

After only reading the reviews of Fr.Meyendorff’s book on the Primacy of Peter, I think Roman Catholics and Orthodox would benefit. It will be the next book on my list.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[GaryTaylor]

Where is your proof to your claim?

To reality?..

Bl. Cardinal John Henry Newman, who summed up his thoughts of papal primacy by stating…

“Developments of Christianity are proved to have been in the contemplation of its Divine Author, by an argument parallel to that by which we infer intelligence in the system of the physical world. In whatever sense the need and its supply are a proof of design in the physical creation, in the same do gaps, if the word may be used, which occur in the structure of the original creed of the Church, make it probable that those developments, which grow out of the truths which lie around them, were intended to complete it.”

newmanreader.org/works/development/

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvocatum.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F09%2Fblessed-john-henry-newman-and-primacy.html&ei=EzkpUPipKY2M6QHO94GADw&usg=AFQjCNHm7rIK_oTAytAYPI6Jtp5ei0DvwA&sig2=JbjErdgcXavQJvOsWy5T4g

The data provided by Fr.Meyendorff’s book on the Primacy of Peter has been discussed in relation to St Cyprian, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon, St Clement. Here its discussed in relation to the book.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CGAQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2Fnum12.htm&ei=X0UpULyfDeG56wHCk4GQAw&usg=AFQjCNGuCTQVzFR8PS-ksD2Y_mrGwus_Qg&sig2=g_UQKWdDiaV8B2WsenVH3w

John Meyendorff explained:

"A very clear patristic tradition sees the succession of Peter in the episcopal ministry. The doctrine of St Cyprian of Carthage on the “See of Peter” being present in every local Church, and not only in Rome, is well-known. It is also found in the East, among people who certainly never read the De unitate ecclesia of Cyprian, but who share its main idea, thus witnessing to it as part of the catholic tradition of the Church. St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, affirms that Christ “through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of the heavenly honors,” and the author of the Areopagitica, when speaking of the “hierarchs” of the Church, refers immediately to the image of St Peter. A careful analysis of ecclesiastical literature both Eastern and Western, of the first millennium, including such documents as the lives of the saint, would certainly show that this tradition was a persistent one; and indeed it belongs to the essence of Christian ecclesiology to consider any local bishop to be the teacher of his flock and therefore to fulfill sacramentally, through apostolic succession, the office of the first true believer, Peter… There exists, however, another succession, equally recognized by Byzantine theologians, but only on the level of the analogy existing between the apostolic college and the episcopal college, this second succession being determined by the need for ecclesiastical order. Its limits are determined by the Councils, and - in the Byzantine practice – by the “very pious emperors.”

Nevertheless there are two sides to the coin. Throughout his writings, "Cyprian asserts that the Rock is Peter, and the Church rests upon him. He also claims that as the Church is settled upon the bishops, they too have authority. He writes, “They, who have departed from the Church, do not allow the Church to recall and bring back the lapsed. There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded by the voice of the Lord on the rock. Another altar cannot be set up, nor a new priesthood made, besides the one altar and the one priesthood. Whoever gathers elsewhere scatters.” In his 251 CE. De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, Cyprian asks, “He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church was founded, does he trust himself to be in the Church?” Giles, E., ed. Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96-454. London: S.P.C.K., 1952. pp. 29-30

or here…

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet He founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"
~Cyprian of Carthage [A.D. 251]

 

[josie_L]

Note that by the third century, Rome has clearly some form of primacy among the Churches of the time. But in no way is this primacy considered the same as how primacy is understood today.

The primitive church (Apostolic Church) is “different” from the Church of the 2nd century, and so and so forth, but the essentials are there, i.e., there is development in our understanding of things including the primacy of Peter (which is rooted in Scripture and Tradition). One only as to look at our delineation of the Holy Trinity over the centuries to realize how true this is. My point being is that all the prerogatives of the papacy through primacy are/were in fact present in Scripture (papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction . . ) through the words of Christ to Peter, and we see this unfurling of prerogatives throughout history.

Anyways, going back to the original argument, i.e., that the Church was not simply synodal, I will give an example of this by quoting Pope Benedict (in his book “Called to Communion”) on the issue of Paul of Samosata:

" I would like to try to illustrate this structure in light of a specific instance, namely, the constroversy surrounding Paul of Samosata, the bishop of Antioch, who in the year 268 was convicted of heresy by an assembly of bishops, relieved of his office and excommunicated.

The proceedings had particularly far-reaching importance, because Antioch was the place where Gentile Christianity had developed and where the name Christian had been coined. Tradition recognized Antioch as the site of Peter’s missionary activity before his departure for Rome. Accordingly, Antioch was a central reference point of the communio. In other words, the world-wide network of communio had - as we have already heard - a few prominent reference points by which the surrounding local Churches took their measure. These are the apostolic sees. For this reason the crisis of such a principle see was particularly momentous: What happens when a reference point itself falters? Obviously mere “neighbourly help” no longer suffices in this situation. For here the whole is at stake. Consequently, while the synod of neigboring bishops can indeed resolve to depose and can choose as successor, it cannot give its decisions definitive juridical force. In this case the Catholica itself must take action. Accordingly, the participants of the Antochene synod of bishops wrote at that time to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria and, through them, to the other bishops of the Catholic Church, "We are thus constrained. . . to appoint another as bishop in his stead on behalf of the Catholic Church. . . .Domnus, who is outstanding in all the qualities that become a bishop. We have informed you of this so that you might write to him and receive from him the letters of communion.

This implies that Domnus cannot be legitimated by the synod alone. His appointment is validated only when the bishops of Rome and Alexandria learn of his election, write to him and accept from him the letters of communion. But the case continues. Paul of Samosata refused to return buildings dedicated to worship. Thereupon the bishops applied to the (pagan!) emperoro Aurelian, who decreed that the buildings were to be handed over to “whomever the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome would acknowledge as lawful.”

 

[josie_L]

The problem is that view never existed in the early Church. Being a leader doesn’t mean the others are subordinate to you. You know, that is why Jesus washed the feet of the Apostles and all.

It is rooted in Christ’s words to Peter, i.e., Scripture, that is why on many occasions you read of Church fathers declaring that the primacy in Rome is by divine institution.

p.s. You are aware that one of the pope’s titles is “Servant of the servants of God” because as Jesus said to Peter he was to strengthen the brethren (his fellow bishops).

 

[Cavaradossi]

The primitive church (Apostolic Church) is “different” from the Church of the 2nd century, and so and so forth, but the essentials are there, i.e., there is development in our understanding of things including the primacy of Peter (which is rooted in Scripture and Tradition). One only as to look at our delineation of the Holy Trinity over the centuries to realize how true this is. My point being is that all the prerogatives of the papacy through primacy are/were in fact present in Scripture (papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction . . ) through the words of Christ to Peter, and we see this unfurling of prerogatives throughout history.

Anyways, going back to the original argument, i.e., that the Church was not simply synodal, I will give an example of this by quoting Pope Benedict (in his book “Called to Communion”) on the issue of Paul of Samosata:

You do not believe that it has always been believed that the Word is divine?

 

[josie_L]

You do not believe that it has always been believed that the Word is divine?

That’s not what I’m saying, of course, I believe that the Word was always believed to be divine (part of our deposit of faith, i.e., Scripture and Tradition), however, the Holy Trinity is much more than whether or not the Word is divine (there are intricacies within the Holy Trinity that were being developed and understood)?

 

[Cavaradossi]

That’s not what I’m saying, of course, I believe that the Word was always believed to be divine (part of our deposit of faith, i.e., Scripture and Tradition), however, the Holy Trinity is much more than whether or not the Word is divine (there are intricacies within the Holy Trinity that were being developed)?

St. Athanasius certainly did not think himself an innovator. The controversy over the homoousion was at its heart centered around the question of which interpretation of a universally accepted set of Scriptural affirmations about the Word was correct. So inimical was the idea of a developing faith to the fourth century Christians, that even the Arians and Eunomians claimed that their interpretations of the Scriptures were the true ones which had been believed since the beginning.