What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

If you wish to dispel my scepticism, then you can do so by giving an historical context

The burden of proof resides with the EO, there is no historical context to discern anything but Rome and the primacy. We are all still waiting for the illusive historic, timelined, outlined debate by the EO. Who were in Communion with Rome for over a Thousand years. Thus anything contrary to what always existed must be proven by the EO.

"For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere"

Now I have the complete 1-5 works of St Irenaeus if you would like to read them. The Church has contined to confirm this through history and consistant patristic works. Including the Councils. Nothing indicates otherwise.

[rinnie]

Funny how in Mt. 16:18-19 Jesus quotes Isaiah 22:21-22

Then he gives the keys to Peter.

Why does Jesus say in John 21:15-17 Why Peter, Why not any other Apostle? Why ONLY Peter?

Why did Peter get the keys? Why Peter?

Lk 22:22 Why would Peter strength thy brethren? Why if they were all equal. How could Peter strenghten Paul? I mean are they all not equal? Then how is this possible.

How about the Catholic Almanac

The Roman Pontiff the successor of St Peter the Bishop of Rome the HEAD of the CHURCH ON EARTH has FULL and SUPREME AUTHORITY over the universal Church ............................. Why Not St Paul or any other Apostle for that matter. It is written look it up.

Why do the authority of all the bishops be exercised in communion with the whole Church UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF HE POPE. CCC 895 Why? Where is it written the Pope must be under the GUIDANCE of the bishops at all times?

Read Issiah again. If that is not the Pope what is? Where is it written other Apostles are called to strenghten? Where is the key layed opon thier shoulders?

Show me one scripture where ST Paul was told to do anything like Peter was. And show me why ST Paul or anyother Apostles have the keys to the kingdom.

Of course St Paul made decisions, all of the Bishops do and have. They all have the power to exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper Ordinary and immediate, although its exerise isultimately CONTROLLED by the SUPREME authority of the Church. (lume Gentium 27)

Show me where ST Paul or any Apostle exercised authority that was not controlled by Peter? Prove this point!

[rinnie]

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

The burden of proof resides with the EO, there is no historical context to discern anything but Rome and the primacy. We are all still waiting for the illusive historic, timelined, outlined debate by the EO. Who were in Communion with Rome for over a Thousand years. Thus anything contrary to what always existed must be proven by the EO.

"For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere"

Now I have the complete 1-5 works of St Irenaeus if you would like to read them. The Church has contined to confirm this through history and consistant patristic works. Including the Councils. Nothing indicates otherwise.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

The burden of proof resides with the EO, there is no historical context to discern anything but Rome and the primacy. We are all still waiting for the illusive historic, timelined, outlined debate by the EO. Who were in Communion with Rome for over a Thousand years. Thus anything contrary to what always existed must be proven by the EO.

This is a classical logical fallacy. Why does Rome not get to prove anything? One of the biggest problems we have in looking at history is we're trying to interpret it with what we want to see. We make an assumption that Rome's supremacy has always been there, and when we read something in praise of Rome we go, "aha! This proves it!" Where in fact it is nothing but just a complement on Rome.

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

"For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere"

Now I have the complete 1-5 works of St Irenaeus if you would like to read them. The Church has contined to confirm this through history and consistant patristic works. Including the Councils. Nothing indicates otherwise.

And this is a classical example of what I just mentioned. Because you are looking for quotes that support Supremacy as we know it today, you will definitely find it. Not because it is there, but anything that would even remotely suggest Supremacy would be interpreted as such by the reader.

Rome indeed was given prestige about other Churches, the same way that Jerusalem had this prestige until the destruction of the city. Even Orthodox sources would admit to that although today many polemicists will undermine Rome's position in the early Church. BUT, that doesn't mean that Rome had command the way Catholics today think. Actually if you read what you posted closely, there is nothing there that says Rome rules over the other Churches. It is the same way that every other Protestant and neo-Arian church out there uses the Bible to justify their beliefs. They have these verses they use to convince people that they are the true Church. Does it mean they are correct because they have these Bible verses?

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Rome indeed was given prestige about other Churches, the same way that Jerusalem had this prestige until the destruction of the city. Even Orthodox sources would admit to that although today many polemicists will undermine Rome's position in the early Church. BUT, that doesn't mean that Rome had command the way Catholics today think.

To that point - is there any Catholic apologetic work that could truly show that the Papacy as it exists today is much the same as has always existed?

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

To that point - is there any Catholic apologetic work that could truly show that the Papacy as it exists today is much the same as has always existed?

Interestingly, the High Petrine view that most Eastern Catholics subscribe to, which is unfortunately a heretical belief according to Pastor Aeternus, is what sounds like the closest to the truth. Trumping the absolutist view of the Latin Catholics and the Low Petrine view of most of the Orthodox.

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Interestingly, the High Petrine view that most Eastern Catholics subscribe to, which is unfortunately a heretical belief according to Pastor Aeternus, is what sounds like the closest to the truth. Trumping the absolutist view of the Latin Catholics and the Low Petrine view of most of the Orthodox.

You may well be correct, but it's also important to bear in mind that Pastor Aeternus, while shocking to some, is bounded (to matters of faith and morals) and measured (as the criteria are fairly specific and imply exceptional, extraordinary usage). In combination with other matters, including Canon Law and practice in action, the full context of Papal Supremacy is understood and becomes problematic for the Orthodox (and, for that matter, for the Absolutists as well).

I do think many ECs have a nuanced view of Pastor Aeternus that is obedient to the Church, yet in combination with statements and actions of the recent Pontiffs, acknowledges that unilateral dogmatic declarations would be rare. Yet, the possibility exists. Further, some Latin Catholics may also reach similar conclusions.

Many agree that the Pontiff had a role to ensure the unity of the Apostles and the faithful. Even if this point is conceded, practically speaking, how could an absolutely powerless Pontiff ensure anything?

[LionHeart777]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

[...]


Of course Honorius did not. The keys are possessed only by those who profess the faith of Peter.



I don't want to turn this into a case study of Honorius. I am just making a point that the office of Peter is assumed the same way Peter assumed it, by professing the faith, and not something that is given to a particular person regardless.



There isn't even solid evidence that Peter occupied the episcopacy in Rome. None of the Apostles held an episcopal office. The Apostolic choir was above the episcopate. It is even demeaning to Peter to be bishop of Rome as he is Apostle of the entire Church.

And given that we do not have solid evidence one way or another, this just means the Orthodox claim to Peter's primacy is as valid as the Catholic claim.



But the clear evidence is that the Eucharistic Ecclesiology existed way before the universal. The Eucharistic is more "traditional", if you want to put it that way. I can put forth similar quotes from The Primacy of Peter later today when I get home. I just went through this section last night.



Which is another source of friction for both sides as how much development is allowed that you turned one thing into a completely different thing. There are really only two concerns I have on Pastor Aeternus. One is the universal ordinary jurisdiction which essentially places two bishops in every Church. The other is that my salvation is tied to believing in the office of the Pope.



The bishop is more than a point of unity, they are the embodiment of the local Church. If the Pope and the local Ordinary has the same authority in the same diocese, then there are two bodies, not one.



The recent events in the OCA would be a good exercise for this.



We are discussing Universal ecclesiology vs. Eucharistic ecclesiology

Hi ConstantineTG,

Just wanted to make a few comments here.

I'll just pick up on the idea you are putting forth: " ...the office of Peter is assumed the same way Peter assumed it, by professing the faith, and not something that is given to a particular person regardless." (emphasis mine)

a couple of questions:

1) What do you mean by "the office of Peter" here?

2) If memory serves, you seem to be restricting this formula (maybe not the best word ) here to Bishops. If so, why is that?

Re: St. Peter and Rome

Like Popes today, I don't believe that St. Peter just held one office. I agree that the office of Apostle is above that of a Bishop (if I'm not mistaken), and I believe the Catholic Church teaches that (if I'm not mistaken.) Also, to paraphrase Msgr. Van Noort: the college of bishops succeeded the apostolic college. But, isn't St. James regarded as the 1st Bishop of Jerusalem? If so, is this "demeaning" as you say?

note: I'll have to investigate what the Catholic Church teaches about St. Peter being the first Bishop of Rome. I notice the Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Into the Roman list of bishops dating from the second century, there was introduced in the third century (as we learn from Eusebius and the 'Chronograph of 354') the notice of a twenty-five years' pontificate for St. Peter, but we are unable to trace its origin."

Source: Kirsch, Johann Peter. "St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 25 Jul. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm>.

I have noticed that the website of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America begin's it's succession list with "The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch."

Re: Universal Ecclesiology vs Eucharistic Theology

I'm have been reading up on this debate here and there and plan to continue doing so.

[LionHeart777]

Also ConstantineTG,

I made an argument that:

I don't see why, if a Bishop is needed in order for their to be unity on a local level, why an office wouldn't be needed on the highest level for the same reason. I think of other institutions which God has established: In the Old Law there was a High Priest. [Edit: Christ is the High Priest of the New Covenant but the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. The function of the Pope, "is similar to, though not identical with, the function of the high priest in the Old Testament." ] .] In the family the man is head over the wife. I see it as a wise decision.

and you responded:

"The bishop is more than a point of unity, they are the embodiment of the local Church. If the Pope and the local Ordinary has the same authority in the same diocese, then there are two bodies, not one."

You have brought up another point about embodiment while perhaps not directly addressing my point about the unity. And that's fine as this is a dialogue; but I see it as being worthy of something you should consider more or reconsider.

About the embodiment, I don't see how jurisdiction has to equal another body, nor do I believe that the Pope interferes with the idea that "the Bishop is the embodiment of the local Church" (also, just for reference is it the Catholic position that the Bishop is "the embodiment of the local Church" ?) You said the Priests have authority within the Parish and so do the Bishops. So here you have authority overlapping and yet this does not constitute multiple bodies (hopefully I'm not building a "straw man" )

We agree that the local structure is:

Bishop
Priests
Deacons

One authority is on top and that ensures unity as I see it

The Catholic position is that (and this is going to be oversimplified perhaps as it doesn't include Patriarchs, Metropolitans, etc.)

Pope
Bishops
Priests
Deacons

Same, one authority is on top and that ensures unity as I see it

[ConstantineTG]

I don't see how the Pope mimics anything off the High Priest in the Old Testament. In the OT, the High Priest is the only one who can enter the Holy of Holies and be in the Divine Presence of God. In the New Testament, only Christ enters the presence of the Father when he ascended to the Father. The Pope doesn't accomplish any of that. To come into the divine presence of God, we must unite ourselves with Christ in communion (ie, those who love me keep my words and just as the Father who loves me is in me and I in Him, so I will be in you and you in me, paraphrasing here). The Pope can't substitute for that, no man can. It is something only Christ can do being the son of God.

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

The Catholic position is that (and this is going to be oversimplified perhaps as it doesn't include Patriarchs, Metropolitans, etc.)

Pope
Bishops
Priests
Deacons

Same, one authority is on top and that ensures unity as I see it

What is wrong here is that you are implying that the Papacy is another level of ordination. It is not. The Pope is a Bishop just as a Primate, a Metropolitan, an Archbishop, all of them are Bishops. Even with priests and deacons there are "ranks", but it doesn't necessarily put them above other priests or other deacons.

[Lucky7]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

This is a classical logical fallacy. Why does Rome not get to prove anything? One of the biggest problems we have in looking at history is we're trying to interpret it with what we want to see. We make an assumption that Rome's supremacy has always been there, and when we read something in praise of Rome we go, "aha! This proves it!" Where in fact it is nothing but just a complement on Rome.

And this is a classical example of what I just mentioned. Because you are looking for quotes that support Supremacy as we know it today, you will definitely find it. Not because it is there, but anything that would even remotely suggest Supremacy would be interpreted as such by the reader.

Rome indeed was given prestige about other Churches, the same way that Jerusalem had this prestige until the destruction of the city. Even Orthodox sources would admit to that although today many polemicists will undermine Rome's position in the early Church. BUT, that doesn't mean that Rome had command the way Catholics today think. Actually if you read what you posted closely, there is nothing there that says Rome rules over the other Churches. It is the same way that every other Protestant and neo-Arian church out there uses the Bible to justify their beliefs. They have these verses they use to convince people that they are the true Church. Does it mean they are correct because they have these Bible verses?

I will repeat a previous post of mine until someone can prove that what is said is really not what was meant by the saint who wrote it. And yes, if you are going to come on a Catholic apologetics website and accuse the Roman Catholic Church of making up new teachings, then yes, you have the burden of proof.

Donatists are not the true church, but Optatus is clear that the true church is the one which recognizes Peter as head of the apostles...the one which recognizes Peter's chair as the "single" chair which maintains unity. The Orthodox Church does not, so.....it's not the true church:

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]). [/i]

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I don't see how the Pope mimics anything off the High Priest in the Old Testament. In the OT, the High Priest is the only one who can enter the Holy of Holies and be in the Divine Presence of God. In the New Testament, only Christ enters the presence of the Father when he ascended to the Father. The Pope doesn't accomplish any of that. To come into the divine presence of God, we must unite ourselves with Christ in communion (ie, those who love me keep my words and just as the Father who loves me is in me and I in Him, so I will be in you and you in me, paraphrasing here). The Pope can't substitute for that, no man can. It is something only Christ can do being the son of God.




What is wrong here is that you are implying that the Papacy is another level of ordination. It is not. The Pope is a Bishop just as a Primate, a Metropolitan, an Archbishop, all of them are Bishops. Even with priests and deacons there are "ranks", but it doesn't necessarily put them above other priests or other deacons.

U-huh? If there exist "ranks" apparently one is above another. The military has ranks and it means some is always above another and at the same time one can be below someone else.

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

There is no picking apart.

You brought up the keys, so I put them in their context.

It is Holy Orthodoxy which conforms to the faith of Peter, and it is Peter's faith which matters. Peter and Paul and the other Apostles have many successors, but it is not which city they are in which makes them bishops. They must remain faithful to neither add nor to subtract from the Apostolic faith they have received from the Apostles. Barring that they are not good teachers.

It is the Roman Catholic church, which has changed doctrine since the first millenium. Any differences between Holy Orthodoxy and your church are completely due to changes your church has made. So don't go on thinking we are in error, Orthodoxy is your past, Orthodoxy is your origin. If Orthodoxy is wrong today, then the roots of your church are wrong.

Really? Tell me which doctrine the RCC changed and give us a detailed account,please.

[Lucky7]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Really? Tell me which doctrine the RCC changed and give us a detailed account,please.

Didn't you hear? The Supremacy of Peter/the Pope is a change in doctrine. The Early Church never believed this.

And get it straight, *we* have the burden of proof. ;-)

YWIA.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

The burden of proof resides with the EO, there is no historical context to discern anything but Rome and the primacy. We are all still waiting for the illusive historic, timelined, outlined debate by the EO. Who were in Communion with Rome for over a Thousand years. Thus anything contrary to what always existed must be proven by the EO.

"For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere"

Now I have the complete 1-5 works of St Irenaeus if you would like to read them. The Church has contined to confirm this through history and consistant patristic works. Including the Councils. Nothing indicates otherwise.

Gary, this is not how it works. When one makes a claim (your claim would be, "the Orthodox are wrong because they reject the papacy, which was accepted since the time of Christ"), you have to supply evidence. When you supply evidence, the critic is allowed to scrutinize the evidence supplied and ask more questions based on the context of the evidence or also to present counterexamples. To suppose that, because the critic has not provided support against your position, your position is therefore true is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. Whether or not I even have a position on the papacy is irrelevant to whether your claim that the papacy as you believe in it (that is, the papacy as defined by the First Vatican Council) is true or not.