Why does Orthodoxy need the Pope?

[manualman]

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?

This line of reasoning suggests “Jesus and me” thinking. But the church is meant to be more than just an apparatus for providing you the sacraments. Christ meant for us to be “one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” That encompasses rather more than just getting you across the salvation finish line. Broaden your thinking.

 

[dzheremi]

We already have the first/original one. Do you mean why we would need the Roman Pope? Because I don’t think we do. The Latins need the Roman Pope, I guess, due to their unique ecclesiology that makes him seem necessary to them. We don’t need him, though, since our ecclesiology is very different than that of the Latins. You’ll notice, I hope, that the Coptic Orthodox Church functioned just fine in the time between the abdication of Pope Benedict and the election of Pope Francis. Not that we are not all very happy for you all, of course. May God bless the new Roman Pope in his efforts to reinvigorate his church.

 

[aemcpa]

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

Well played. :clapping:

 

[Nicea325]

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”.

Really? So now the term episcopate/bishop has to be mentioned to his name to confirm his office? This is known as the “Denial of Peter’s Primacy” Syndrome.

 

[truthseeker32]

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?

As I understand Catholic moral theology, the most important salvific element is avoiding mortal sin. Thus if you believe the Roman Catholic Church is correct about the Bishop of Rome, failing to be in communion with the Catholic Church would be a wrong for which you are culpable. Thus the reason an Orthodox Christian can be saved is the same reason a Jew or Muslim can be saved: because they are doing what they think is right and are ignorant of the truth. Granted, Orthodox Christians are much closer to the truth than Jews or Muslims (from the Catholic point of view) which is beneficial in that they know more fully how they ought to worship and live.

The reason papal infallibility is important, from the Catholic perspective, is it is a beacon of sorts that allows the Church to stay on course and not deviate from orthodoxy. I won’t go into any more detail because better minds than mine have addressed this question:

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-robber-council-establishes-papacy.html
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/answering-orthodox-objections-about.html

 

[Arrependida]

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.

I wonder if our bishops and popes, out of charity, make the above clear to the people present in the ecumenical meetings and interfaith “liturgies” some of them like to participate in.

 

[Zekariya]

We already have the first/original one. Do you mean why we would need the Roman Pope?

You are correct. The bishop of Alexandria was the first to be affectionately called pope (papa).

St Dionysius (bishop of Rome from AD 259 to 268) said about Pope St Heraclas of Alexandria, “I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed pope πάπα (papa)], Heraclas.”

You need the bishop of Rome who is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.

 

[dzheremi]

Nope. The Roman Pope and all of his faithful need the Orthodox faith, which is the faith of our Fathers, whether Roman, Greek, Coptic, or anything else. Nice try, though.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Nope. The Roman Pope and all of his faithful need the Orthodox faith, which is the faith of our Fathers, whether Roman, Greek, Coptic, or anything else. Nice try, though.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Thus if you believe the Roman Catholic Church is correct about the Bishop of Rome, failing to be in communion with the Catholic Church would be a wrong for which you are culpable.

The reason papal infallibility is important, from the Catholic perspective, is it is a beacon of sorts that allows the Church to stay on course and not deviate from orthodoxy.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in paragraph 838: "Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” - according to the Catholic Church, Orthodox Christians are already in communion with the Catholic Church.

As to the second statement, Pope Honorius was condemned by an Ecumenical Councils as a heretic. Being Pope didn’t prevent him from deviating from orthodoxy. Unity with the Pope isn’t a guarantee to remain orthodox.

 

[GaryTaylor]

False, incorrect assertion with Communion as inability to come to unity presents an intrinsic lack in the Church. This doesn’t mean the Church is not a Church in the full sense of the word or the Sacraments are not valid or their Bishops not Bishops. In this sense unity is not constitutive for the particular Church.

“Each particular Church is ordered to membership with the whole. Otherwise it remains a cell, it is legitimately a Church, but the cell is lacking, namely its connection with the whole.”

Pope Benedict XVI

The Orthodox don’t need a Pope, they need to be part of the whole with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[truthseeker32]

As to the second statement, Pope Honorius was condemned by an Ecumenical Councils as a heretic. Being Pope didn’t prevent him from deviating from orthodoxy. Unity with the Pope isn’t a guarantee to remain orthodox.

The Catholic Church has never said that papal infallibility means that the Bishop of Rome cannot hold heretical beliefs. Papal infallibility is the belief that the Bishop of Rome, when guiding the church by ex cathedra pronouncements, will not lead the church astray.

 

[Zekariya]

As to the second statement, Pope Honorius was condemned by an Ecumenical Councils as a heretic. Being Pope didn’t prevent him from deviating from orthodoxy. Unity with the Pope isn’t a guarantee to remain orthodox.

Look at history. Many popes (besides Pope Honorius) deviated from the Catholic Faith. Unity with the Bishop of Rome is a guarantee to remain under the proper authority of the Vicar of the Son of David. It has never been morally permissible to break from the sons of David even when they where evil men. How many righteous prophets and people from the Old Testament started a new Israel while the majority (including the King the son of David) were unorthodox? None.

 

[Wandile]

St Maximus the Confessor, an Eastern Monk from the mid 6th to mid 7th century affirms the Primacy AND Supremacy of Rome through Peter and the necessity for communion with Rome :

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light
awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred
dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the
inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously
decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word
amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world
have held the greatest Church alone to be their base
and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of
Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail
against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox
confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true
and exclusive religion to such men as approach with
piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth
which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus,
Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec.
vol. 90)

Continued…

 

[Wandile]

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a
reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone
who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus
also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he
anathematizes the CATHOLIC CHURCH. I need hardly add
that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in
communion with the Roman See and the Catholic
Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to
satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree
in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in
vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons
like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the
blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the
Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the
incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the
holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and
definitions has received UNIVERSAL and SUPREME
DOMINION, AUThORITY, and power of binding and loosing
over ALL the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692)

Salvation is attained through the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that is found amongst all who are in communion with the Holy See, the Holy Church of Rome. Anybody who leaves this one Church of God for another with full knowledge of what he is doing is a schismatic. Schism is a sin not just against the Church but against God. Thus even though the Orthodox sacraments are valid, salvation is unattainable from them if one is a schismatic as he desecrates the sacraments by partaking in them while in a state of mortal sin.

Hence one is forced to confess the sin of schism and recommune with the Holy Catholic Church where salvation is found for outside it there is not salvation.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The letter to Peter is not good evidence. It does not exist in Greek but is only preserved in fragments in Latin. Without a Greek original, it is impossible to determine if the letter was in fact a genuine letter of St Maximus, a forgery or if it is a genuine letter which contains interpolations. The last passage, which you bolded, contains a lot of language in it which would not be used until the Gregorian Reforms, and is likely an interpolation, especially the part about the Roman Church receiving supreme jurisdiction from the Sacred Canons: that may have been true in the West by the time of the post-schism Gregorian Reforms, but there are no canons from the Ecumenical Councils which confer upon the bishop of Rome supreme and universal jurisdiction. Perhaps if St. Maximus had advocated such ideas elsewhere, the passage would be more credible, but frankly, as it stands (with no existing copy in the original language, and no indication in St. Maximus’ other writings that he believed this) it’s about as good evidence as the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, or the Donation of Constantine.

Now for the other passage of St. Maximus, the first bolded part is true. People in the Church did look to Rome as the first see of the Church to see what was taught there in times of doctrinal dispute. But the claim made by the Roman Catholic Church today is that they understood doctrinal pronouncements from Rome to be doctrinally binding, something which St. Maximus there does not advocate. Secondly, it must be remembered that at this time, St. Maximus’ allies in the fight against monothelitism were in Rome. He had a particular interest in rhetorically stressing the doctrinal purity of the Roman See, and there is no reason not to understand this passage as a rhetorical application of hyperbole (just as we sing to the Theotokos “we know none other help but thee,” even though we know that she is rightly confessed to be our helper after our most merciful God and Savior Jesus Christ). And even if St. Maximus believed that the Roman See could never err in faith, he was in error, as shown by the Sixth Ecumenical Synod’s condemnation of Pope Honorius, and Pope Leo II’s confirmation of this Ecumenical Synod, in which he wrote that Honorius “by profane treachery permitted its [the Church’s] purity to be polluted (or in the Latin version of the letter, attempted to pollute its purity).”

 

[Shiranui117]

Look at history. Many popes (besides Pope Honorius) deviated from the Catholic Faith. Unity with the Bishop of Rome is a guarantee to remain under the proper authority of the Vicar of the Son of David. It has never been morally permissible to break from the sons of David even when they where evil men. How many righteous prophets and people from the Old Testament started a new Israel while the majority (including the King the son of David) were unorthodox? None.

But which is more important, being under the Roman bishop who can and has deviated from the Catholic Faith (as you yourself just stated) or holding to the Faith that was delivered once and for all to the Saints? Surely the Faith of the Apostles matters more than being under the authority of any one man?

 

[Zekariya]

“And all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out [in response to Pope St Cœlestine’s letter]. This is a just judgment. To Cœlestine, a new Paul! To Cyril a new Paul! To Cœlestine the guardian of the faith! To Cœlestine of one mind with the synod! To Cœlestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Cœlestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!” - Third Ecumenical Council, Session II (Continued)
Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xiv.html

[emphasis mine]

 

[Zekariya]

But which is more important, being under the Roman bishop who can and has deviated from the Catholic Faith (as you yourself just stated) or holding to the Faith that was delivered once and for all to the Saints? Surely the Faith of the Apostles matters more than being under the authority of any one man?

…who can and has at times deviated from the Catholic Faith… As has the patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Church. We now have tons of True Genuine Orthodox Churches all claiming orthodoxy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

But which is more important, being under the Roman bishop who can and has deviated from the Catholic Faith (as you yourself just stated) or holding to the Faith that was delivered once and for all to the Saints??

Wait, wait surely your are not suggesting the East never deviated from the faith? How quickly we forget. Sinners my friend that is the paradox, this is a Church of sinners who “must” strive not to sin.

And yes in the East you are subject to your Bishop in your See, as is in Rome.

And yes the Saints are a blessing to all. Why do you ignore your BIshop and quote Saints to him when you disagree?

Surely the Faith of the Apostles matters more than being under the authority of any one man?

And we “all” follow that book. Better known as the most Holy Bible. Greatest book ever written? Must have.