Why does Orthodoxy need the Pope?

[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.

Pope Julius on St Athanasius in defense.

"Judgement ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write to us, so the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all . They were Bishops who suffered, and they were not ordinary Church’s that suffered, but those which the Apostles themselves governed.

And above all why was nothing written to Rome about the Church of Alexandria? Are you ignorant that the Custom is to write first to us., and Then for a just decision to be passed."

 

[Schism_hater]

It doesn’t matter who you ask. The Church has only two officially accepted occurences of speaking ex cathedra.

1. Mary’s Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854
2. Mary’s bodily Assumption into Heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950)

Tell that to Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, author of what is recognized in the Roman Catholic Church as the most authoritative explanation of the Vatican I definition of infallibility outside of the Council itself, the Relatio of July 11, 1870, written to explain the definition and which received the approval of Pope Pius IX:

For we define: the dogmatic judgments of the Roman pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontif in such judgments. It seems to me that was the mind of some of the most reverend Fathers as they spoke from the podium. But, most eminent and reverend Fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accpeted becuse we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See…

Relation of Bishop Gasser, reprinted in The Gift of Infallibility, translated with commentary by Rev. James T. O’Connor, Ignatius Books, 2nd Ed., 2008, p. 51 (my emphasis).

 

[Zekariya]

Tell that to Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, author of what is recognized in the Roman Catholic Church as the most authoritative explanation of the Vatican I definition of infallibility outside of the Council itself, the Relatio of July 11, 1870, written to explain the definition and which received the approval of Pope Pius IX:

For we define: the dogmatic judgments of the Roman pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontif in such judgments. It seems to me that was the mind of some of the most reverend Fathers as they spoke from the podium. But, most eminent and reverend Fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accpeted becuse we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See…

Relation of Bishop Gasser, reprinted in The Gift of Infallibility, translated with commentary by Rev. James T. O’Connor, Ignatius Books, 2nd Ed., 2008, p. 51 (my emphasis).

“Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See”

I would like a list of just 1,000 of the thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments. Seriously, how many Theologians and apologists believe the above quote to be accurate? Certainly there would be at least 500 things in a list on the internet for us to read if the above was at all true.

 

[Cavaradossi]

“Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See”

I would like a list of just 1,000 of the thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments. Seriously, how many Theologians and apologists believe the above quote to be accurate? Certainly there would be at least 500 things in a list on the internet for us to read if the above was at all true.

The relatio is supposed to be one of the most fundamental expositions on papal infallibility.

 

[Zekariya]

The relatio is supposed to be one of the most fundamental expositions on papal infallibility.

Seriously, if there were thousands of thousands of infallible dogmatic judgments, reading a list of just a mere 500 of them is not to much to ask.

 

[Hasire]

Seriously, if there were thousands of thousands of infallible dogmatic judgments, reading a list of just a mere 500 of them is not to much to ask.

Hmm, so basically Bishop Vicent is being ridiculous/lying to us?

 

[Zekariya]

Hmm, so basically Bishop Vicent is being ridiculous/lying to us?

Bishop Vincent has expressed his thoughts on this topic. I believe that “thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments” very is incorrect. Has he written what even 250 of them were?

 

[Hasire]

Bishop Vincent has expressed his thoughts on this topic. I believe that “thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments” very is incorrect. Has he written what even 250 of them were?

What do you think about him stating that there are hundreds of thousands dogmatic judgments? Do you know any reason he “confused” the one and only dogmatic judgment 'till his time (the IC) with 1000’s of 1000s of dogmatic statements that never ever existed?

 

[Reuben_J]

Hmm, so basically Bishop Vicent is being ridiculous/lying to us?

He is a theologian and speaks his thought. There are other theologians who may not agree with him. To quote a single Catholic Bishop is inconclusive other than to demonstrate that there are varying of opinions.

 

[Schism_hater]

He is a theologian and speaks his thought. There are other theologians who may not agree with him. To quote a single Catholic Bishop is inconclusive other than to demonstrate that there are varying of opinions.

Even merely to say there is a variety of opinions refutes Zekariya’s post.

 

[Reuben_J]

Even merely to say there is a variety of opinions refutes Zekariya’s post.

You are right if that’s the objective but there is probably more to that. We do have many clergies and theologians who would speak their hearts out though they may not necessarily speak for the Catholic Church. Even the Pope can muse his personal thought. The official Church’s stance is easy to find as it speaks with one voice.

 

[JohnVIII]

The Catholic Church created this “need” for a Pope. So it follows that only Catholics have this need. The first pope was the bishop of Alexandria. Rome was the second pope. Why, after all this, should anyone object to a third pope in Constantinople? If this need for a pope has to do with a “need” for unity I think arguably that both Alexandria and Constantinople did a better job at creating unity than Rome, but this is only an opinion.

Now, if it can be shown that there is no actual “need” for unity, can there be a need for any kind of pope? I see this “need” only political in nature, otherwise why would St Paul say, “for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Corinthians 11:19)? In other words, why didn’t Paul say, ‘for there must be a pope among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized’?

I used to be Orthodox and I know that the Orthodox do have their own need for unity and if the pope of Rome could help them in their need they would unite with Rome. But after a certain point in history the Eastern Churches have found from experience that Rome for them leads to disunity and they find that unity for them can better be achieved by remaining separate from Rome.

None of you will believe me but I’m going to say it anyway: In the beginning there was only one apostle and this apostle was none other than St Mark, the first bishop of Alexandria. The 12 special disciples were not called apostles originally and their designation as apostles was claimed by Rome only to defuse the concept that there was to be only one apostle and thus defuse that one authority. In less than 100 years after the death of St Mark in Alexandria, Rome assumed universal authority and managed to relegate Alexandria to second place. Later Constantinople relegated Alexandria to third place. All this was done for political reasons and was never fully recognized as valid by Alexandria; Alexandria only compromised in order to deal graciously with Rome and also with Constantinople. Alexandria is still the spiritual head of all of Christianity, but to see this you must set aside the politics.

Of course the Eastern Churches don’t need a pope, not Rome, nor even a pope in Constantinople! And politically you don’t need a pope even from Alexandria, but you all do need St Mark spiritually speaking, though none of you may have this knowledge.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Catholic Church created this “need” for a Pope. So it follows that only Catholics have this need. The first pope was the bishop of Alexandria. Rome was the second pope. Why, after all this, should anyone object to a third pope in Constantinople? If this need for a pope has to do with a “need” for unity I think arguably that both Alexandria and Constantinople did a better job at creating unity than Rome, but this is only an opinion.

What is a Pope? It simply mean papa. Father. The Pope in context of this thread is the Bishop of Rome which had been accorded primacy among his brother Bishops.

Could Alexandria and Constantinople do a better job as creating unity? That would be subjective and in any case they were never entrusted to that power as did the Bishop of Rome by the self proclaimed of his position. In the early years he was often needed to arbitrate and as reference by his brother Bishops. He could be the most appropriate person for that purpose of unity.

Now, if it can be shown that there is no actual “need” for unity, can there be a need for any kind of pope? I see this “need” only political in nature, otherwise why would St Paul say, “for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Corinthians 11:19)? In other words, why didn’t Paul say, ‘for there must be a pope among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized’?

Of course there is a need for unity in Christendom. The fact that there is none does not mean that there is never a need. Unity is commanded by the Lord.

Unity is certainly not political. You have to read about how Paul who had only harsh words for Christians who followed different leaders (1 Cor 3).

I used to be Orthodox and I know that the Orthodox do have their own need for unity and if the pope of Rome could help them in their need they would unite with Rome. But after a certain point in history the Eastern Churches have found from experience that Rome for them leads to disunity and they find that unity for them can better be achieved by remaining separate from Rome.

Yes, of course. But unity is still important. As time goes on perhaps people on both sides will change to achieve unity.

None of you will believe me but I’m going to say it anyway: In the beginning there was only one apostle and this apostle was none other than St Mark, the first bishop of Alexandria. The 12 special disciples were not called apostles originally and their designation as apostles was claimed by Rome only to defuse the concept that there was to be only one apostle and thus defuse that one authority. In less than 100 years after the death of St Mark in Alexandria, Rome assumed universal authority and managed to relegate Alexandria to second place. Later Constantinople relegated Alexandria to third place. All this was done for political reasons and was never fully recognized as valid by Alexandria; Alexandria only compromised in order to deal graciously with Rome and also with Constantinople. Alexandria is still the spiritual head of all of Christianity, but to see this you must set aside the politics.

This view is not conventional though. Most Christians believe that there were the twelve apostles to begin with.

Of course the Eastern Churches don’t need a pope, not Rome, nor even a pope in Constantinople! And politically you don’t need a pope even from Alexandria, but you all do need St Mark spiritually speaking, though none of you may have this knowledge.

Well said as an Orthodox. And I am not going to argue with that.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well said as an Orthodox. And I am not going to argue with that.

He is not Orthodox.

 

[Peter_J]

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?

Hi Paul. Just to provide a bit of balance here, I think it should be kept in mind that the Catholic Church isn’t interested in sheep-taking.

As the Balamand Statement put it, “Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Hi Paul. Just to provide a bit of balance here, I think it should be kept in mind that the Catholic Church isn’t interested in sheep-taking.

As the Balamand Statement put it, “Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”.

Thanks but im talking about the Orthodox church as a whole,as at the moment its seperate from the Pope thats why ive asked why would they need the Pope and what difference would it make seeing they already have the sacraments and salvation…

thanks for everyones answers

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Well we don’t need a Pope over exerting his authority, thats for sure.