Why do the Greek Orthodox reject the universal jurisdiction of the Pope?

[Paul_theApostle]

So the Orthodox dont want anything to do with the Pope…from what ive read ,Rome is the See of Peter and the Pope is the sucessor of Peters position as Chief Apostle and chief shepherd which Christ said to Peter to feed and tend his lambs and strengthen his brothers…

With my own dad or father,if i cut relations with him and block him out of my life and have no respect for him as my father,then how is it possible to recieve from my dad any care,love or to be tended ,strengthened and nurtured by him?

If any of the Apostles cut themselves off from Peter and disrespected him and didnt want anything to do with him anymore,then maybe they would also reject the thought of him being the ‘chief’ Apostle and they also wouldnt warm to the idea of being ‘under’ the ‘care’ and tending’ of him ,rather they would despise him and reject his Authority and be in no mood to recieve his Pastoral advice,care ,love,tending,feeding etc

I used to think and feel my own dad was a big uncaring monster for a long time,and i used to push him away alot and wanted to be far away from him,perhaps some non Catholics feel the Pope is a two horned monster also and want nothing to do with him

In the article in a previous post it says-

Since the Eastern schism began, the Orthodox have generally claimed that the pope has only a primacy of honor among the bishops of the world, not a primacy of authority. But the concept of a primacy of honor without a corresponding authority cannot be derived from the Bible. At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honor among them.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter “the keys to the kingdom” and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).

In John 21:15–17, with only the other disciples present (cf. John 21:2), **Jesus asks Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”—in other words, is Peter more devoted to him than the other disciples? When Peter responds that he is, Jesus instructs him: “Feed my lambs” (22:15). Thus we see Jesus describing the other disciples, the only other people who are present, the ones whom Jesus refers to as “these,” as part of the lambs that he instructs Peter to feed, giving him the role of pastor (shepherd) over them. Again, a reference to Peter having more than merely a primacy of honor with respect to the other apostles, but a primacy of pastoral discipline as well.
**

So with these words at the end,if we can truly relate the position of the Pope to Peter, then i cant understand how Primacy cannot be understood to be something more then the Pope just getting to sit on a nice armchair at a more imporatnt seat at an Ecumenical council

With the whole passage above,do any of you Orthodox relate Peters postion of Pastotral care (sheperding) over the sheep to the Pope in Rome?

and if you do,how do you respond to the Pope being Chief Sheperd and Pastor over the whole world or church as Peter was by Christs command?

What kind of ‘tending’ ‘feeding’ ‘pastoral care’ from the Pope do you accept?

Is there any regret for not being united or together with the Pope who continues to practice St Peters mission to care and tend the flock of Christ?

Are the Orthodox exempt from this Pastoral care of Peter and his sucessors??

 

[milidrag]

…

With the whole passage above,do any of you Orthodox relate Peters postion of Pastotral care (sheperding) over the sheep to the Pope in Rome?

Obviously not. If anyone would do, he would be an EC, not an EO.

What kind of ‘tending’ ‘feeding’ ‘pastoral care’ from the Pope do you accept?

Obviously none.

Is there any regret for not being united or together with the Pope

Obviously not. If anyone would feel regret, he would be an EC, not an EO.

 

[Deconi]

You give yourself too little credit. There’s no reason to treat you as if you’re stupid; you’re not!

The story of Photius basically goes like this:

The main dispute with Photius was over papal jurisdiction. When Photius ascended to the patriarchal throne in 858, the West rallied around his deposed predecessor, Ignatius. Pope Nicholas I in 861 sent legates to Constantinople in order to examine whether Photius had been canonically elected. The legates eventually reached the conclusion that Photius indeed had been canonically elected. Upon returning to Rome, they found out that this was not at all Pope Nicholas’ intention. He wanted for them to declare Photius’ ordination to be invalid. Pope Nicholas’ next course of action was to convene a synod in the West in 863 to declare a sentence of deposition against Photius.

The reaction in the East was to ignore this synod, because they believed that Pope Nicholas I had declared this deposition non-canonically. Firstly, Ignatius did not submit an appeal against his deposition, so along those lines, Pope Nicholas I could not claim that he was using his canonical prerogative outlined in the canons of Sardica, because no appeal had been sent. Secondly, the canon from Sardica did not grant the pope the power to convene and preside over the retrial in Rome, it gave him the right to demand for a retrial to be held involving the bishops of a neighboring province (of where the original judgment took place) and the right to send legates.

The related canon from Sardica:

In 867, Photius convened a synod in which Pope Nicholas I was excommunicated for heresy. The heresy in question was that he supported the Germanic missionaries in Bulgaria, who used the Filioque in the Creed (this is how the Filioque debate really got started, although from St. Maximus the Confessor’s writings, we can see that it was already a point of contention two centuries earlier). There is even some evidence that Emperor Michael III sent a letter to the Frankish Emperor Louis II, offering to recognize him as Emperor of the West in exchange for deposing Nicholas I. Photius’ luck changed, however, when Emperor Michael III was murdered by Basil the Macedonian, who usurped the throne. One of Emperor Basil’s first acts was to depose Photius and reinstate Ignatius, with the hope of securing an alliance with both Pope Adrian II and Louis II.

In 869-870, a council was held which condemned Photius. This has become known by the Roman Catholics as the Eighth Ecumenical Council. It was not long, however, before Photius had managed to gain Emperor Basil’s favor. Not only this, but he had also reconciled with Patriarch Ignatius, and when he fell ill, Photius used his knowledge of medicine to tend to him as he died. After Ignatius died, Basil had Photius appointed as Patriarch in 877. One of Photius’ first acts upon his ascension (for the second time) to the Patriarchal throne was to declare his predecessor Ignatius a saint.

(ephasis mine)

In my opinion, the base of the schism is PRIDE! Though it may have had legitimate multifaceted reasoning, the result is pride prevents the East from submission to Rome.

Obviously, the same charge can be levelled at Rome, but considering that the East ‘left’ the lineage, as it were, it is difficult to lean towards the East with any legitimate confidence.

That line I’ve emboldened (above) suggests volumes of treatment to be examined. How can you depose a bishop from his seat legitimately? Is that canonical?

You can deny his right to the chair, or accuse him of setting up an alternative chair to the legitimate line of bishops, or even point out an error in him, but can you (canonically) depose a bishop from his chair?

You’ve nicely detailed your examinations of what FOLLOWED (from your vantage) but the original inception of the papal legates may be inaccurate from this view. Without even delving into the period material, I can summise that Nicholas would have wanted to know what happened around Ignatius being deposed.

Don’t get me wrong. I like your examination and comprehend all that followed from this treatment, but it remains unanswered whether Nicholas I, accepted or understood the deposition of Ignatius from your material provided. If I can spare the time, I’ll commit the circumstances to examination also.

Just musing out loud.
…

 

[Deconi]

So the Orthodox dont want anything to do with the Pope…from what ive read ,Rome is the See of Peter and the Pope is the sucessor of Peters position as Chief Apostle and chief shepherd which Christ said to Peter to feed and tend his lambs and strengthen his brothers…

With my own dad or father,if i cut relations with him and block him out of my life and have no respect for him as my father,then how is it possible to recieve from my dad any care,love or to be tended ,strengthened and nurtured by him?

If any of the Apostles cut themselves off from Peter and disrespected him and didnt want anything to do with him anymore,then maybe they would also reject the thought of him being the ‘chief’ Apostle and they also wouldnt warm to the idea of being ‘under’ the ‘care’ and tending’ of him ,rather they would despise him and reject his Authority and be in no mood to recieve his Pastoral advice,care ,love,tending,feeding etc

I used to think and feel my own dad was a big uncaring monster for a long time,and i used to push him away alot and wanted to be far away from him,perhaps some non Catholics feel the Pope is a two horned monster also and want nothing to do with him

In the article in a previous post it says-

Since the Eastern schism began, the Orthodox have generally claimed that the pope has only a primacy of honor among the bishops of the world, not a primacy of authority. But the concept of a primacy of honor without a corresponding authority cannot be derived from the Bible. At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honor among them.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter “the keys to the kingdom” and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).

In John 21:15–17, with only the other disciples present (cf. John 21:2), **Jesus asks Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”—in other words, is Peter more devoted to him than the other disciples? When Peter responds that he is, Jesus instructs him: “Feed my lambs” (22:15). Thus we see Jesus describing the other disciples, the only other people who are present, the ones whom Jesus refers to as “these,” as part of the lambs that he instructs Peter to feed, giving him the role of pastor (shepherd) over them. Again, a reference to Peter having more than merely a primacy of honor with respect to the other apostles, but a primacy of pastoral discipline as well.
**

So with these words at the end,if we can truly relate the position of the Pope to Peter, then i cant understand how Primacy cannot be understood to be something more then the Pope just getting to sit on a nice armchair at a more imporatnt seat at an Ecumenical council

With the whole passage above,do any of you Orthodox relate Peters postion of Pastotral care (sheperding) over the sheep to the Pope in Rome?

and if you do,how do you respond to the Pope being Chief Sheperd and Pastor over the whole world or church as Peter was by Christs command?

What kind of ‘tending’ ‘feeding’ ‘pastoral care’ from the Pope do you accept?

Is there any regret for not being united or together with the Pope who continues to practice St Peters mission to care and tend the flock of Christ?

Are the Orthodox exempt from this Pastoral care of Peter and his sucessors??

There is much in what you say, my friend. If Peter, himself, in body, was still sitting in that chair in Rome, would we still have this separation? I would place a fortune on 'NO!" ALL would be running to Rome!

The problem seems to be that ‘we’ look to Rome as though Peter still sits there!..whereas now, humans wantt to validate their varying positions against Rome, because he is not the person, Peter!

 

[Nicea325]

Settling grave matters does not mean jurisdiction. You don’t go to the President of the United States to settle problems with the law, you go to the courts.

If in 2000 years the Pope has some authority he has never used, then he probably doesn’t have it. There have been many cases in history where he could have. Just with the Great Schism, why didn’t the Pope just depose those bishops in the East against him if he did have jurisdiction there and replace them with bishops loyal to him?

Interesting point of view,but unfortunately I disagree.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interesting point of view,but unfortunately I disagree.

Thats fine, but I put that question out there. Because the Pope seemed helpless in preventing the schism. I he indeed had the jurisdiction to replace bishops, why didn’t he do it?

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Obviously not. If anyone would do, he would be an EC, not an EO.
.

Thanks for your answers

So you dont agree with that pasage about St Peters mission and the Pope carrying on that mission,howcome?

Is there something wrong in that passage? Did Peters mission die when Peter died ,or is it wrong to believe his mission continues in the person of the Pope his sucessor?

Or do you think it was that way before the schism,but since then the Papacy has lost its way and fallen into error/heresy,and at this time you cannot possibly accept Pastoral care from a Pope who is in error?

 

[Nicea325]

Thats fine, but I put that question out there. Because the Pope seemed helpless in preventing the schism. I he indeed had the jurisdiction to replace bishops, why didn’t he do it?

And do you honestly believe such a question debunks jurisdiction? Who has full jurisdiction of Heaven? God. Did all the angels obey His jurisdiction? Unfortunately not all bishops would have heeded his jurisdiction-that is the honest truth.

God Bless

 

[Trebor135]

And do you honestly believe such a question debunks jurisdiction? Who has full jurisdiction of Heaven? God. Did all the angels obey His jurisdiction? Unfortunately not all bishops would have heeded his jurisdiction-that is the honest truth.

God Bless

But do we have documentation that the pope at the time wrote to eastern bishops pointing to his universal jurisdiction and on that basis instructing them not to go into schism?

 

[ConstantineTG]

And do you honestly believe such a question debunks jurisdiction? Who has full jurisdiction of Heaven? God. Did all the angels obey His jurisdiction? Unfortunately not all bishops would have heeded his jurisdiction-that is the honest truth.

God Bless

Well, God did threw them out of heaven. The Bishops of the East kept their Churches. The most that Rome did was excommunication.

 

[Cavaradossi]

But do we have documentation that the pope at the time wrote to eastern bishops pointing to his universal jurisdiction and on that basis instructing them not to go into schism?

Far from attempting to prevent schism, Rome actually encouraged it, like when Cardinal Humbert came to Constantinople, attacked the Eastern liturgical practice of using leavened bread (this is after the pope “corrected” the same “error” of using leavened bread committed by the native Greek Christian population of southern Italy and Sicily, and Michael Cerularius responded by forbidding the liturgical use of unleavened bread in Constantinople), attacked the tradition of ordaining married men as priests, accused the Easterners of Simony, attempted to forge political alliances to depose Patriarch Michael Cerularius, and upon being frustrated that the people were not listening to his proposal to destroy their liturgical traditions, placed a bull of excommunication upon the holy table in the Hagia Sophia, excommunicating Patriarch Michael Cerularius for the aforementioned reasons and the absurd allegation that he deleted the filioque from the Creed. Given the state of the papacy in the eleventh century (busy fighting investiture), I doubt you would find any such letter.

 

[Cavaradossi]

And do you honestly believe such a question debunks jurisdiction? Who has full jurisdiction of Heaven? God. Did all the angels obey His jurisdiction? Unfortunately not all bishops would have heeded his jurisdiction-that is the honest truth.

God Bless

So the Eastern Orthodox are like demons? Perhaps this analogy is not exactly the best one to get your point across.

 

[milidrag]

…

So you dont agree with that pasage about St Peters mission and the Pope carrying on that mission,howcome?

Is there something wrong in that passage? Did Peters mission die when Peter died ,or is it wrong to believe his mission continues in the person of the Pope his sucessor?
…

The best answer is to get your presumptions straight and to see which ones lead to the conclusion you make. It is explained pretty well in Aristotle’s Topica, Analitica priora and Analitica posteriora (usually published within the collection known as Organon).

In short terms, you had laid down several presumptions, some of which are false, and drew a conclusion on them. By definition, such a conclusion is a fallacy.

…
Or do you think it was that way before the schism,…

No, I don’t, since never a single proof has been presented about it, while a number of existing sources prove the contrary.

…the Papacy has lost its way and fallen into error/heresy,and at this time you cannot possibly accept Pastoral care from a Pope who is in error?

Yes, I do agree with that.

 

[Nicea325]

So the Eastern Orthodox are like demons? Perhaps this analogy is not exactly the best one to get your point across.

Of course not! I have much admiration for the Orthodox Church. My point is that not all people will obey the pope,even if he did have full jurisdiction. Sorry.

 

[Nicea325]

Well, God did threw them out of heaven. The Bishops of the East kept their Churches. The most that Rome did was excommunication.

Throw-out,expel,remove,kick-out whatever term one chooses,God did keep some angels and did excommunicate the rebellious angels-right?

 

[Paul_theApostle]

The best answer is to get your presumptions straight and to see which ones lead to the conclusion you make. It is explained pretty well in Aristotle’s Topica, Analitica priora and Analitica posteriora (usually published within the collection known as Organon).

In short terms, you had laid down several presumptions, some of which are false, and drew a conclusion on them. By definition, such a conclusion is a fallacy.

t.

?

What ever ,i just put forth what Catholics believe and as usual you dont get a straight answer,you just get rebuked…

well good luck anyway

whoops rather may God be with you…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Throw-out,expel,remove,kick-out whatever term one chooses,God did keep some angels and did excommunicate the rebellious angels-right?

When God threw out the angels, they didn’t take any piece of heaven with them. When the Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated, Rome did not maintain any sort of possession with the Church in Constantinople. In fact, over the years it eroded and other Eastern Churches left communion with Rome until the Union of Brest.

 

[Nine_Two]

Thanks for your answers

So you dont agree with that pasage about St Peters mission and the Pope carrying on that mission,howcome?

Is there something wrong in that passage? Did Peters mission die when Peter died ,or is it wrong to believe his mission continues in the person of the Pope his sucessor?

Or do you think it was that way before the schism,but since then the Papacy has lost its way and fallen into error/heresy,and at this time you cannot possibly accept Pastoral care from a Pope who is in error?

There is something wrong in that passage, actually.

The passage doesn’t translate well into English because Greek has five words for love and two (the greatest and the least) are present in this verse. Different translations try different methods of getting this across, and most fail miserably because people don’t pay enough attention to adjectives.

It was a test, Peter failed, but Christ told him how he could pass. Peter followed his instructions and had passed by the end of his life.

 

[MaroniteRosary]

We reject it because it is a Latin fiction.

Just know the pope isent just the Pope of the " Latin " Church .

 

[Nicea325]

When God threw out the angels, they didn’t take any piece of heaven with them. When the Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated, Rome did not maintain any sort of possession with the Church in Constantinople. In fact, over the years it eroded and other Eastern Churches left communion with Rome until the Union of Brest.

Exactly! It is all or nothing. Precisely why God made Hell for them to be completely separated from His Graces for eternity.