Why does Orthodoxy need the Pope?

[Paul_theApostle]

If Orthodox Christians have true sacraments and can be saved without the Pope or being in union with Rome, then why do they need the Pope and what difference would it make being in union with him.

Isnt the sacraments and salvation enough for Orthodoxy? what more does one need other then this?

 

[Joseph_Misango]

The relation of their Pope and their bishop is “primus inter pares”

 

[Wandile]

Cyrpian :

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him 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 that also which 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? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4
A.D. 251]).

Optatus :

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up
another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by
that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall,
then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to
claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The
Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

They need to Pope to be part of the true holy church for that is where sacerdotal unity is held… As St. Cyprian of Carthage and Optatus put it.

They need the Papacy to have the true faith as Rome is where orthodoxy is guarded and maintained.

One must remember that the Orthodox Church only has true sacraments not because it is catholic or true; but because the true church, the Catholic Church, exists within the Orthodox Church to a limited degree (that being the sacraments). All are saved through the Catholic Church and outside it there is no salvation.

 

[aemcpa]

Willful rejection of the Roman Pontiff is objectively grave matter. While it is possible for non-Catholics to be saved, the path to salvation is littered with traps and wrong turns. Within the Church, the path is straight and sure.

 

[manualman]

Do disrespect intended, but do you approach ALL aspects of life this way, asking the question “What’s the absolute minimum I have to do to get by?” Your marriage? Your kids? Your job?

No? So why ask it about the governance of the church?

As a catholic, I might engage in some supposition that without the papacy, christianity is vulnerable to being influenced, even dominated by temporal rulers to the point where instead of being truly “catholic” (universal), the church becomes fragmented into ethnic enclaves and loses a significant portion of its power to evangelize and convert the world to the gospel.

Maybe that’s why Jesus renamed Simon as Peter and established the office in the first place? Just supposition…

 

[livingwordunity]

If Orthodox Christians have true sacraments and can be saved without the Pope or being in union with Rome, then why do they need the Pope and what difference would it make being in union with him.

Isnt the sacraments and salvation enough for Orthodoxy? what more does one need other then this?

We need a Pope if Christians are to be united in mind and to be able to speak with one voice against unholy world powers. Disunity among those who profess Christ is why many have fallen away from Christianity. For example, imagine someone is raised by Westboro Baptists, and they decide to reject Christianity based on that experience. And it can be very confusing to a non-Christian who might be considering becoming a Christian when to him all he sees is thousands of denominations that contradict each other in doctrines. Christ prayed that his Church would be “perfectly one” (John 17:23), so that the world may know him.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know that we all don’t need each other. Especially watching the Apostolic Church’s in the middle east. As the children ask the grow-ups, Grown-ups, when will there be peace on earth?

 

[Hasire]

If Orthodox Christians have true sacraments and can be saved without the Pope or being in union with Rome, then why do they need the Pope and what difference would it make being in union with him.

Isnt the sacraments and salvation enough for Orthodoxy? what more does one need other then this?

Bro-tip: We don’t.

Let me elaborate, we want to reestablish union with the Patriarch of the West, not with a Infallible Bishop of Rome claiming to be Vicar.

 

[RKO]

This is a good question. I see my fellow Catholics posting all kinds of quotes about why the Pope is the head of the church, but the question remains: If I can get the same sacrament from an Orthodox Church that I can from a Catholic church, why would I need to be Catholic?
Would I receive a “lesser salvation” from the Orthodox than I would as a Catholic?
would the " to him to whom much is given" passage kick in? If I left the church because I did not believe the Papal office is used as the Church originally taught, am I damned or not quite as saved as I would be (NOT the protestant use of “saved.” I’m talking about after death.)

Do I “sin” by leaving the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church? even if I never fully understood what I was leaving?

 

[Ad_Orientem]

There is no assurance that sacraments outside the Church avail unto salvation. I believe St. Augustine was of the opinion that they did not (but could be wrong on that). Of course, God can work miracles, but it is presumptuous to expect him to.

In any case, Vatican II states: “it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is ‘the all-embracing means of salvation,’ that [separated brethren] can benefit fully from the means of salvation.” – Unitatis Redintegratio, 3

 

[RKO]

Even though the Catholic Church teaches that Orthodox sacraments are valid? Does that not necessarily mean they are salvific? If so, why would the Church not say that?

 

[Evan]

If your entire point of going to church is to ‘Get Saved’, then maybe orthodox works for you, but so could evangelical fundamentalism (or not).

If you want to know the fullness of truth from the church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, you should be in a church that has a guarentee that the gates of hell will be defeated and falsehood will not be definitively taught.

 

[Zekariya]

**Soloviev’s Amen - A Russian Orthodox Argument for the Papacy
**
by Fr. Ray Ryland - May 27, 2010

…]

When the Head Is Cut Off…

The most serious effect of the Russian Church’s schism (Soloviev doesn’t shy away from the term) is caesaropapism – control of the Church by the secular powers. Before the schism, each time the emperors tried to direct the Church in the East, the Eastern Fathers appealed to Rome. The pope always championed their cause and defeated the imperial designs. But once the Eastern Churches cut themselves off from Catholic communion, they surrendered their freedom to the secular powers.

The Russian Church has inherited caesaropapism from Byzantium, “where this anti-Christian principle had developed unhindered ever since the ninth century” (The Russian Church and the Papacy; unless otherwise noted, all the following quotations refer to this volume). Having cut its ties with Rome, the Russian Church became a purely national church, and it’s impossible for such a church to exist independently of state control.

Continued: catholicity.com/commentary/ryland/08198.html

 

[Nicea325]

**Soloviev’s Amen - A Russian Orthodox Argument for the Papacy
**
by Fr. Ray Ryland - May 27, 2010

…]

When the Head Is Cut Off…

The most serious effect of the Russian Church’s schism (Soloviev doesn’t shy away from the term) is caesaropapism – control of the Church by the secular powers. Before the schism, each time the emperors tried to direct the Church in the East, the Eastern Fathers appealed to Rome. The pope always championed their cause and defeated the imperial designs. But once the Eastern Churches cut themselves off from Catholic communion, they surrendered their freedom to the secular powers.

The Russian Church has inherited caesaropapism from Byzantium, “where this anti-Christian principle had developed unhindered ever since the ninth century” (The Russian Church and the Papacy; unless otherwise noted, all the following quotations refer to this volume). Having cut its ties with Rome, the Russian Church became a purely national church, and it’s impossible for such a church to exist independently of state control.

Continued: catholicity.com/commentary/ryland/08198.html

In regards to the bolded words, I have always mentioned such a fact to Orthodoxs who usually ignore it or give a different meaning as to what such facts really meant?

 

[Nicea325]

They need to Pope to be part of the true holy church for that is where sacerdotal unity is held… As St. Cyprian of Carthage and Optatus put it.

They need the Papacy to have the true faith as Rome is where orthodoxy is guarded and maintained.

One must remember that the Orthodox Church only has true sacraments not because it is catholic or true; but because the true church, the Catholic Church, exists within the Orthodox Church to a limited degree (that being the sacraments). All are saved through the Catholic Church and outside it there is no salvation.

Cyrpian :

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him 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 that also which 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? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4
A.D. 251]).

I just don’t get how those loud and clear words can be interpretated into something totally different?

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Bro-tip: We don’t.

Let me elaborate, we want to reestablish union with the Patriarch of the West, not with a Infallible Bishop of Rome claiming to be Vicar.

 

[Hasire]

I just don’t get how those loud and clear words can be interpretated into something totally different?

Yep, the words are very clear. I read here that primacy was given to Peter. I’m not the one that makes the logical leap to read everything that mentions Peter and replace it with “Bishop of Rome”. This is known as the “Peter Syndrome”.

 

[aemcpa]

Bro-tip: We don’t.

Let me elaborate, we want to reestablish union with the Patriarch of the West, not with a Infallible Bishop of Rome claiming to be Vicar.

Good luck in your quest to find the mythical creature that is one but not the other.

Do I “sin” by leaving the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church? even if I never fully understood what I was leaving?

Yes, it is a sin to leave the Catholic Church for any other church or religion. In the case of the Orthodox, it is the sin of schism. Committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent, it is a mortal sin.

 

[Hasire]

Good luck in your quest to find the mythical creature that is one but not the other.

Yes, it is a sin to leave the Catholic Church for any other church or religion. In the case of the Orthodox, it is the sin of schism. Committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent, it is a mortal sin.

It isn’t mythical, just extint, for the moment

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Even though the Catholic Church teaches that Orthodox sacraments are valid? Does that not necessarily mean they are salvific? If so, why would the Church not say that?

The Church does say it, in the Catechism of Trent, Art. IX, under the heading “Holy”:

the Church alone has the legitimate worship of sacrifice, and the salutary use of the Sacraments

But when you’re establishing ecumenical relations you don’t emphasize differences, you start with and emphasize common ground.

I found the passage in Augustine. It’s in On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book IV, Chap. 1:

. . . the streams from the fountain of Paradise flowed copiously even beyond its bounds. . . . Accordingly, though the waters of Paradise are found beyond its boundaries, yet its happiness is in Paradise alone. So, therefore, the baptism of the Church may exist outside, but the gift of the life of happiness is found alone within the Church, which has been founded on a rock. . . .

Interestingly, the late Russian Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky seems to have supported this view in his essay “The Limits of the Church” (Church Quarterly Review, 1933), an interesting read.