What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[mercytruth]

I never said that the papacy in Rome could take it upon itself to choose bishops over other dioceses, I said it received letters from other bishops upon their ordination in order to ensure that, one, the pope in Rome knew who was bishop of which diocese, and second, whether they were orthodox (he would accept their ordination once this was demonstrated). I think you misunderstand what universal jurisdiction means, i.e., it does not mean a pope can interfere wily nily into other domains, but that rather that he upholds orthodoxy and in the process strengthens his brethren. He is at their service as the “servant of the servants of God”.

p.s. You will have to excuse me but I will have to respond to your other qualms later on.

God bless you!

Josie

Regarding the choosing of bishops by the papacy of Rome:

**It is of Catholic faith that bishops are of Divine institution. In the hierarchy of order they possess powers superior to those of priests and deacons; in the hierarchy of jurisdiction, by Christ’s will, the are appointed for the government of one portion of the faithful of the Church, under the direction and authority of the sovereign pontiff, who can determine and restrain their powers, but, not annihilate them. **

newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

This is the current development of the jurisdictional authority of the papacy of Rome that is very contrary to the divine ordinances established by Jesus Christ and the apostles as I stated in posts # 353, 354 $ 355.

God bless you also,

Micah

 

[josie_L]

No, it is you who are grasping at straws. You are doing nothing more than special pleading, asking if it would not be more fitting that the legates sent by Pope Leo would be well informed, and resorting to the meanings of English words. Such arguments are specious because what is more fitting is not always what is true, and translations cannot be subjected to the same sort of textual criticisms as one would use with original documents, owing to differences in the connotations and secondary meanings of words.

I asked you, if you could supply me with the translation (from his book), or do I have to plead?

Pope Leo had wanted a council in Italy where he would preside. What use then, would he have for preparing legates when he himself would have expected to be the presiding bishop? Similarly, that bolded sentence is no guarantee the the legates were not ignorant of certain things. They were simply given instructions by Pope Leo which he urged the Eastern bishops to follow.** I don’t see how any of this could be indicative of how well-prepared the legates were.**

I don’t recall him saying that he would preside, he was asked however, moreover, he could not go because he had the pressing issue of the Huns. And I don’t see how it indicates otherwise.

That is not at all clear. It seems that Marcian had other motivations for calling a council. The idea that he had no intention of ‘disobeying’ pope Leo seems to be a rather anachronistic reading of the socio-political situation at the time of the council. So many emperors were guilty of ‘disobeying’ the bishop of Rome that it is hard to see how it could even be claimed that they believed that they owed him any obedience in the first place.

He was an orthodox CHRISTIAN emperor was he not, and as such meant to obey the Church (are we not all expected to obey her). Irregardless, I only have to say that unlike his predecessor who was more interested in upholding Ephesus for political reasons (reasons I’m sure Marcian could have used against holding a new council), he did not.

p.s. He is a Saint of the Church as is his wife Pulcheria.

 

[josie_L]

We must not allow such florid honorific speech fool us. Pope Leo writes similarly deferential statements things back to the Emperor and Empress.

For example, he writes to Emperor Marcian: The subsequent synod in the aforesaid city [Ephesus] we cannot call a council, since it is clear that it was set in motion for the overthrow of the faith; your clemency, about to give assistance to Catholics through love of the truth, will annul it by determining otherwise, most glorious one.

Leo, ep. 90
He writes to Empress Pulcheria: That which we always presumed about your piety’s disposition, we have now fully discovered by experience – that, however varied the plots of wicked men by which it is assailed, nevertheless when you are present and equipped by the Lord for its defence the Catholic faith cannot be shaken. For God does not neglect either the mystery of his mercy or the deserts of your labour, by which you formerly expelled the crafty foe of holy religion from the very vitals of the church, when the Nestorian impiety was unable to maintain its heresy, for the reason that it did not escape the handmaid and pupil of the truth how much poison was poured into simple people by the specious lies of that glib man. It was a consequence of this trial of strength that through your solicitude the machinations of the devil contrived by means of Eutyches did not remain hid, and those who had embraced one or other side in this twinned impiety were laid low by the single power of the catholic faith. Your second victory was therefore the destruction of Eutyches’ error, which, if he had had any soundness of mind, he could easily have avoided, since it had been repulsed in its originators and long ago laid low, rather than trying to stir the fire into life from the buried ashes, in such a way as to share the lot of those whose example he followed, most glorious. We wish, therefore, to jump for joy and to fulfil appropriate vows to God for your clemency’s prosperity, for he has already bestowed on you a double palm and crown through all parts of the world where the gospel of the Lord is preached.

Your clemency’s religious solicitude, which you unceasingly devote to the catholic faith, I recognize in everything, and give thanks to God at seeing you taking such care of the universal church that I can confidently recommend what I think agreeable to justice and benevolence, in order that there may the more swiftly be brought to a welcome issue what through the favour of Christ has hitherto been unimpeachably achieved by the zeal of your piety, most glorious one.

Leo, ep. 95

The only reason I had quoted part of those epistles was to show you that Pope St. Leo had initiated the process of calling for a council, and that Emperor Marcian had complied (thankfully). Although I have hard time denoting to simple flattery these words from Marcian in the very same epistle:

“held the supreme place [principatus] in the episcopate of the divine law”

[Letter 73 to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome in Mansi VI:93AB]

 

[josie_L]

But if this were true, why was the entire eighth session of the council dedicated to reinstating Theodoret? Should not have St. Leo’s authority been enough? Instead, the council demanded that he first anathematize Nestorius, and then when he anathematized Nestorius, they decided that his rejection of Nestorius and his communion with Pope Leo were grounds enough for him to be reinstated.

Well, the pope wrote a letter to the council, this letter has it is summarized here, delineates:

The pope also wrote to the council,[19] a blend of good wishes, information, and authoritative instructions. The emperor has called the council but “with due regard to the rights and honour of St. Peter,” as shown by his invitation “to us also to lend our presence” to the venerable assembly. But neither the critical situation at the moment,[20] nor precedent allows us to accept. The presence of the legates will be a reminder that it is really the pope who is presiding. Passing to the business before the bishops the pope reminds them that he has already stated, in his letter to Flavian, what is to be believed about our Lord’s Incarnation. **As to the question of reconciling, and reinstating, the repentant bishops, the pope leaves this entirely to the council, and the question also about restoring the exiled bishops to their sees, now provided (thanks to the late emperor) with “successors.” **But–no bishop is to be degraded from his episcopal character.

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/coun5.html

The epistle in question is XCIII (to the council of Chalcedon).

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/677/St._Leo_the_Great___Letters_60_173.html

The pope does not mention Theodoret or anyone else specifically in the epistle (although the council and the emperor were aware at this point that Theodoret was in communion with Rome). I have to say though that in session 5 of the council you have the bishops of Illyria stating:

“The most blessed bishops of Illyria said: Let those who contradict be made manifest. Those who contradict are Nestorians. Those who contradict, let them go to Rome.”

This attests to the (last) court of appeals I mentioned earlier in my posts wherein heretics and orthodox alike sought out Rome to appeal on issues of faith, morals and discipline.