Why won't you Orthodox submit to the Roman Pontiff?

[Dauphin]

Alright, let’s get this tired debate re-started. Why don’t the Orthodox accept the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church?

I give you this quote from St. Cyprian of Carthage:

*"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] 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 also what 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; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

So, how can the Orthodox be confident that they are in the Church?*

 

[Prometheum_x]

Alright, let’s get this tired debate re-started. Why don’t the Orthodox accept the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church?

I give you this quote from St. Cyprian of Carthage:

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] 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 also what 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; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

So, how can the Orthodox be confident that they are in the Church?

That’s a pretty complicated questions, I hope you know. I am Catholic, and I don’t consider that quotation to be very helpful for addressing that question. Here’s why:

First of all, in regards to what it says: The problem with citing texts that refer to Peter is that one can easily respond, “Yes, that applies to Peter, but how does one know that these same things apply to his successor – or that he even has a specific successor?” What we have to look for is evidence of the establishment of a perpetual Petrine office. The reference to “chair” begins to go in that direction, but in my opinion this passage is overall fairly weak in that area.

Second, there are two different versions of this text by Cyprian, and it is not entirely clear how they are related. Regardless, the other version significantly de-stresses the references to Peter and eliminates the references to the chair completely, if I am recalling it correctly. Whether Cyprian wrote both versions or whether someone else came along later and made edits is somewhat irrelevant, because either way it weakens the strength of this text as evidence for the Petrine office.

 

[zagjames]

Orthodox do believe the Patriarch of Rome (or Pope) is the primary Patriarchial See. They view him as the sucessor of Peter, and the fact they are not in communion with him is an issue for many Orthodox theologians. They just do not believe he can be infaliable or the ultimate ruler of the Church. They think that he should be the 1st among equals or maybe a little more then that. At least that is how I understand it. I could be wrong.

 

[Marina14]

Alright, let’s get this tired debate re-started. Why don’t the Orthodox accept the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church?

I give you this quote from St. Cyprian of Carthage:

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] 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 also what 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; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

So, how can the Orthodox be confident that they are in the Church?

This quote proves exactly what Orthodox believe, that Rome was given Primacy; however, this quote does not prove Supremacy which is what the Catholic Church now claims.

Since Rome has fallen away from all the other Patriarchates by false teachings, it is no longer considered maintaining it’s primacy; however, I’ve heard that if Rome repents and returns to Orthodoxy then the Patriarchates would likely give back it’s primacy.

If there are any Early Church Fathers which recognized the Roman See as being Supreme over all other Patriarchs, this I would like to see and examine.

 

[Dauphin]

This quote proves exactly what Orthodox believe, that Rome was given Primacy; however, this quote does not prove Supremacy which is what the Catholic Church now claims.

Since Rome has fallen away from all the other Patriarchates by false teachings, it is no longer considered maintaining it’s primacy; however, I’ve heard that if Rome repents and returns to Orthodoxy then the Patriarchates would likely give back it’s primacy.

If there are any Early Church Fathers which recognized the Roman See as being Supreme over all other Patriarchs, this I would like to see and examine.

But you haven’t answered my question! If the Successor of Peter is the “source and the intrinsic reason” for the unity of the Church, how can the Orthodox be certain that they are in the Church?

 

[AgnosTheist]

First of all, in regards to what it says: The problem with citing texts that refer to Peter is that one can easily respond, “Yes, that applies to Peter, but how does one know that these same things apply to his successor – or that he even has a specific successor?”.

They just do not believe he can be infaliable or the ultimate ruler of the Church. They think that he should be the 1st among equals or maybe a little more then that.

Since Rome has fallen away from all the other Patriarchates by false teachings, it is no longer considered maintaining it’s primacy

This I’ve got to hear: what ‘false teachings’?

 

[Marina14]

But you haven’t answered my question! If the Successor of Peter is the “source and the intrinsic reason” for the unity of the Church, how can the Orthodox be certain that they are in the Church?

They can be certain because the Roman See fell away from the True Church several centuries later through heresy. Look at history!

Primacy is not Supremacy!

 

[AgnosTheist]

^ Marina, what heresy?

 

[Marina14]

^ Marina, what heresy?

If you seriously don’t know, it’s a waste of my time to be here!

 

[AgnosTheist]

If you seriously don’t know, it’s a waste of my time to be here!

I really dont know. Can you give me a link or something? Thanks.

 

[zagjames]

Well the possible heresies they could claim I suppose are:

-the Filioque(this one I think there needs to be dialogue on, I don’t think the addition means that much, but we(by we I mean the bishops of East and West) should have a legitimate discussion on the issue.

-the Infalliablity of the Pope
-other then that I am grasping could an Orthodox faithful poster help me out for the rest.

the schism in 1054 was only the official break there had been drifting apart for the 300 years before because of culture and politics. those two still seem like the big issues that no one who is Orthodox seems willing to admit. but that is just my humble opinion.

 

[SiempreFiel]

In other words, why don’t the Orthodox accept the pope as the chief authority especially when taking into account that St. John Chrysostom accepted the pope as such? Why not follow St. John Chrysostom’s example?

“Jesus puts into his [Peter’s] hands the chief authority among the brethren” – St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on the Gospel of John.

 

[frnate]

But you haven’t answered my question! If the Successor of Peter is the “source and the intrinsic reason” for the unity of the Church, how can the Orthodox be certain that they are in the Church?

The key to your question is the presupposition that the Pope is the “source and the intrinsic reason for the unity of the Church.” That is a point of view that is in fact not catholic, in the sense that it has not always been believed, practiced and **taught **by the whole Church (i.e. universally.) Which are the marks of catholicity.

Peace,
+N

 

[Mickey]

could an Orthodox faithful poster help me out for the rest.

There are many areas of differences in discipline, but the major theological differences are:

The infallibility and supreme authority of the Pope of Rome

Filioque

Purgatory

Imaculate conception and understanding of original sin

 

[Dauphin]

I really dont know. Can you give me a link or something? Thanks.

“They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church.” - The Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[Dauphin]

The key to your question is the presupposition that the Pope is the “source and the intrinsic reason for the unity of the Church.” That is a point of view that is in fact not catholic, in the sense that it has not always been believed, practiced and **taught **by the whole Church (i.e. universally.) Which are the marks of catholicity.

Peace,
+N

I’m simply quoting St. Cyprian. His writings seem pretty Catholic to me.

 

[frnate]

I really don’t know. Can you give me a link or something? Thanks.

You should check out this book it’s a very charitable examination of the issues from an Eastern POV. I found it used for a much better price. If it’s not feasible for you to get it, I will see what I can find on the WWW, but it’s hard to find stuff that’s not on the polemical side. That’s why I liked the book so much, it consciously avoids polemics.

Peace,
+N

 

[frnate]

I’m simply quoting St. Cyprian. His writings seem pretty Catholic to me.

The writings of one Church Father do not qualify as universal teaching and practice. Look more closely at other sources as well. Especially the Councils.

Peace,
+N

 

[Dauphin]

The writings of one Church Father do not qualify as universal teaching and practice. Look more closely at other sources as well. Especially the Councils.

Peace,
+N

And the Bible.

 

[Irenicist]

Alright, let’s get this tired debate re-started. Why don’t the Orthodox accept the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church?

I give you this quote from St. Cyprian of Carthage:

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] 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 also what 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; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

So, how can the Orthodox be confident that they are in the Church?

This is really a can of worms. The simple answer to your question is that they believe that they are in the Church because they have remained faithful to the authentic Tradition that was handed down to them by the Apostles. But I don’t think that’s the real question (note that Cyprian was a Western and not an Eastern father and, as such, would naturally be more disposed to share the Roman view of things).

For the rest, I will presume to offer an answer for Orthodoxy because experience teaches me that the answers you will get on this forum will otherwise only reflect the more extreme (almost and sometimes explictly Athonite) anti-Roman perspective from within Orthodoxy.

What is really at issue is what is involved in Rome’s claims to universal primacy in matters of faith and Church governance. Until relatively recently, the tendency on the Roman side has been to view this Primacy essentially in terms of power and authority, i.e. in legal terms. I think this leads to a dead end, not because I contest the idea of universal jurisdiction, but because it is impossible to demonstrate the exercise of this kind of legal jurisdiction in the very early days of the Church when the Apostles and early bishops were essentially winging it in terms of governance.

What I think most Orthodox would accept (i.e. the less viscerally anti-Catholic amongst them) is a Roman Primacy of responsibility towards unity, the specific legal modalities of which could vary and have varied in time and place. The Orthodox are not of one mind, however, on what such modalities might be (and many contest the utility or necessity of any legal framework whatsoever).

Limiting the discussion to Church governance, the closest East-West agreement we can point to that hasn’t been explicitly repudiated by one side or the other is found in the canons of the Council of Sardicca, though neither side ultimately found this model workable. Sardicca provided for the Pope to receive appeals on questionable legal cases from inside the other Patriarchates. Faced with such a case, he was to select three judges from within the Patriarchate concerned who were to hear the appeal on his behalf.

The problem with the Sardiccan canons was that they didn’t provide for what was to happen if the Pope ultimately dissagreed with the decisions of the judges he had selected, or if the bishops of the Patriarchate concerned chose to defy whatever decision was rendered. Still, I think Sardicca could be revisited and serve as a basis for discussion, and so does Bishop Kallistos Ware the foremost English language popularizer of Orthodoxy…

Irenicist