What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope? - Page 8

RKO · #**106** Jul 24, '12, 6:48 am

was he claiming supremacy (and infallibity) as opposed to primacy over the 12? or was that a later interpretation of Acts and other verses?

For the record, I do NOT claim to know the answer. I have been catholic all my life, but find myself questioning some of these issues.

ConstantineTG · #**107** Jul 24, '12, 7:44 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rinnie

But I don't see who disagrees with that. Every single bishop who is ordained is a successor.

But show me where Peter gave every single Bishop the keys to the kingdom?

Show me where Peter gave the keys to one.

RKO · #**108** Jul 24, '12, 8:10 am

Originally Posted by rinnie
But I don't see who disagrees with that. Every single bishop who is ordained is a successor.

But show me where Peter gave every single Bishop the keys to the kingdom?

PLEASE take this as a question and NOT an accusation: Is it truly Catholic (in the universal sense) for one Bishop to virtually eliminate the collegiality of all Bishops by claiming supremacy over them?

Or maybe it truly is what Jesus wanted. I truly am confused...

ConstantineTG · #**109** Jul 24, '12, 8:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKO

Originally Posted by rinnie
But I don't see who disagrees with that. Every single bishop who is ordained is a successor.

But show me where Peter gave every single Bishop the keys to the kingdom?

PLEASE take this as a question and NOT an accusation: Is it truly Catholic (in the universal sense) for one Bishop to virtually eliminate the collegiality of all Bishops by claiming supremacy over them?

Or maybe it truly is what Jesus wanted. I truly am confused...

Well, it is Catholic or Universal. Because there is one Church for the entire world led by one bishop. I don't mind this model at all, but let us not call the other bishops as bishops, it is a bit misleading if there is only one real bishop at the top.

If we are worried about succession and ordination, I have learned that priest can be given the power to ordain. What is given in their ordination has to be changed, but it is indeed possible if that is the will of the bishops. The extent of what a priest and deacon can or cannot do rests on the bishops and the words and intent of ordination.

ByzCathCantor · #**110** Jul 24, '12, 9:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Well, it is Catholic or Universal. Because there is one Church for the entire world led by one bishop. I don't mind this model at all, but let us not call the other bishops as bishops, it is a bit misleading if there is only one real bishop at the top.

Are you saying that the Pope is the only bishop of the Church?

LionHeart777 · #**111** Jul 24, '12, 9:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Where is concrete proof? Here... http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.xiii.html

The canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council affirms the anathema on Honorius by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

The problem with the Universal Ecclesiology, as I noted, undermines the role of other bishops. Also if there is one super-bishop that Peter appointed as successor which is the Pope, why does the Pope NOT appoint his successor as Peter did?

Who can blame them? It has been the model of Church they have been operating on since the beginning.

No doubt! Theme of the book was never to deny Primacy. The problem any Orthodox have with the Catholic Church is the definition of Primacy. As the book has pointed out, Orthodox theologians and scholars throughout time have professed primacy in Peter and even with Rome. But this primacy is not what Rome has clamored for, and certainly not what Vatican I dogmatized.

But that is the Universal Ecclesiology. Yes, the Church still teaches that the bishops have their own ordinary jurisdiction and authority. But that is paralleled by the Pope. The Pope doesn't take away from the local Bishop, but that doesn't mean the Pope doesn't have the same authority. He does. The only place you will see this is with a local bishop and a parish priest, where the bishop has as much authority in the parish as the parish priest. Right now the bishops seem to be parish priests of the Pope, the Pope having universal jurisdiction (as a bishop is to a diocese) while the priests have authority within their jurisdiction (as a parish priest is to his parish).

I'm not Orthodox so I won't be able to answer that directly. But what I can see in the Eastern Catholic Church should follow the Orthodox ecclesiastical model. Our bishops always meet in a synod. Our patriarch doesn't do anything unilaterally. He doesn't make proclamations without the synod. In fact, he is powerless without the synod. Even in communion with Rome, we do not follow the Roman ecclesiology. The Metropolitan isn't the boss of my bishop as much as the Patriarch isn't the boss of the Metropolitan. Those are roles they have for the Church and it doesn't grant them any authority over the other bishops.

Re: Honorius, I had linked to that article as a source and perhaps as a reference. You may not agree with it (as you didn't Cavaradossi) but I believe it does address the point you are making.

Also, I don't see how Honorius "drove the Church into the water" or even drove the "drove the [Roman] [c]hurch into the water." I believe this to be impossible (that the Church will be driven into the H20) due to the fact that it is Infallible and Indefectible. I wrote a series of articles in the past as a refutation of Sedevacantism. There are a number of opinions regarding the idea of a heretical Pope and what would happen.

Quote:

A little background is perhaps in order. St. Robert Bellarmine was the first to gather all of the various Theological opinions on a heretical Pope and he graded them.[3] Of the five, only two of them seem to be taken seriously now days. [4] These two opinions are as follows:

“‘God would never allow a pope to fall into heresy’” [5]
“’If he was to fall into a manifest heresy, the pope would ipso facto lose his pontificate.’” [6]

Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/will...tand-up-part-3

I believe St. Robert Bellarmine wrote extensively on this and addressed the case of Honorius. Those opinions (at least) the second one need some more explanation I believe. I dealt with the second using Canon Law and Church documents such (using mostly if not completely secondary sources.) If you feel like investigating what would happen in the theoretical 2nd opinion you could read the articles. ("Will the Real Catholic Church Please Stand Up") *see my signature for my page

I can't really comment on how a successor to St. Peter was appointed because I don't know. I think maybe the Bishop of Rome filled the vacant office (the Papacy) upon the martyrdom of St. Peter as Rome is where he was Bishop last and Rome is where he was martyred.

If, as you say, "[Eucharistic Ecclesiology] has been the model of Church [the Eastern Orthodox] have been operating on since the beginning", why is it that, as the article I cited by Nicholas Afanassieff says: "The Orthodox Church has not clearly defined her attitudes, but our 'school' teaching follows Catholic doctrine and accepts universal ecclesiology as an axiom." ?

As per the Papacy and Vatican I, I think Catholic sources agree that there has been a legitimate development in the understanding of it.

About the Pope having universal jurisdiction. The Pope has more than one office as you know. 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. In the family the man is head over the wife. I see it as a wise decision.

I will have to investigate the case with Patriarchs and Metropolitans Eastern Orthodox and their relationships to local Bishops.

Cavaradossi · #**112** Jul 24, '12, 10:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

Also, I don't see how Honorius "drove the Church into the water" or even drove the "drove the [Roman] [c]hurch into the water." I believe this to be impossible (that the Church will be driven into the H20) due to the fact that it is Infallible and Indefectible. I wrote a series of articles in the past as a refutation of Sedevacantism. There are a number of opinions regarding the idea of a heretical Pope and what would happen.

Well you know, there is the Patriarchal Cathedral Basilica of Saint Mark in Venice which is literally sinking into the water, although I think that has more to do with physics and less to do with heresy.

rinnie · #**113** Jul 24, '12, 10:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Show me where Peter gave the keys to one.

The early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as the head.

Explain this one to me. Why was the Bishop of Rome always called on to settle matters.

THe 4th Bishop was called to settle a matter when St John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth then Rome. WHY? If they all had the same authority. Why the Bishop of Rome then.

Plus read the O.T. that is how it always was. In the N.T. Christ set up a New Israel to continue teaching until he comes again in glory.

Now tell me why is it in the early days it was always the Bishop of Rome who settled things? Beginning with Peter and continues with the Pope Today.

Where has any Bishop trumped the Pope in the history of the Roman Catholic Church?

LionHeart777 · #**114** Jul 24, '12, 10:57 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Well you know, there is the Patriarchal Cathedral Basilica of Saint Mark in Venice which is literally sinking into the water, although I think that has more to do with physics and less to do with heresy.

Stop it!

ConstantineTG · #**115** Jul 24, '12, 11:08 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rinnie

The early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as the head.

Proof?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rinnie

Explain this one to me. Why was the Bishop of Rome always called on to settle matters.

Always? Below you presented one case. One case is not "always".

Quote:

Originally Posted by rinnie

THe 4th Bishop was called to settle a matter when St John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth then Rome. WHY? If they all had the same authority. Why the Bishop of Rome then.

On the other hand, where is it written that the Apostle should be the one to settle all issues? Isn't it why they appointed bishops in the first place? And settling issues isn't always a notion of supremacy of one bishop over the other. The First Council of Jerusalem settles a matter that was for the Church in Antioch, not Jerusalem. But the one who made a decision was St. James who is head of the Church of Jerusalem. Does this mean Antioch is subordinate to Jerusalem? Why didn't the Bishop of Antoich settle it? Why didn't Peter go to Antoich to settle it? He went to Jerusalem instead for the council.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rinnie

Plus read the O.T. that is how it always was.

Where?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rinnie

In the N.T. Christ set up a New Israel to continue teaching until he comes again in glory.

No contest here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rinnie

Now tell me why is it in the early days it was always the Bishop of Rome who settled things?

Surely you can give me more than one example if it is done always

Also, please explain why in the Ecumenical Councils that the Council still had to affirm that the Pope speaks of the true faith and that Peter spoke through the Pope. This needed affirmation by the Ecumenical Council (in the case of Pope St. Leo the Great as well as I think the 6th or 7th Ecumenical Council, I don't have my notes now) rather than something we believe today to be inherent with the Pope (that he speaks for Peter out of his own volition).

Quote:

Originally Posted by rinnie

Beginning with Peter and continues with the Pope Today.

Peter is a universal teacher, an Apostle. Paul settled a lot of issues with a lot of Churches. Where is his primacy? In fact we have more evidence that Paul was involved in more Churches than Peter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rinnie

Where has any Bishop trumped the Pope in the history of the Roman Catholic Church?

You mean besides a council condemning and anathemizing Honorius even though today it is said that no one on earth can judge the Pope?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

Re: Honorius, I had linked to that article as a source and perhaps as a reference. You may not agree with it (as you didn't Cavaradossi) but I believe it does address the point you are making.

Also, I don't see how Honorius "drove the Church into the water" or even drove the "drove the [Roman] [c]hurch into the water." I believe this to be impossible (that the Church will be driven into the H20) due to the fact that it is Infallible and Indefectible. I wrote a series of articles in the past as a refutation of Sedevacantism. There are a number of opinions regarding the idea of a heretical Pope and what would happen.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/will...tand-up-part-3

I believe St. Robert Bellarmine wrote extensively on this and addressed the case of Honorius. Those opinions (at least) the second one need some more explanation I believe. I dealt with the second using Canon Law and Church documents such (using mostly if not completely secondary sources.) If you feel like investigating what would happen in the theoretical 2nd opinion you could read the articles. ("Will the Real Catholic Church Please Stand Up") *see my signature for my page

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

I can't really comment on how a successor to St. Peter was appointed because I don't know. I think maybe the Bishop of Rome filled the vacant office (the Papacy) upon the martyrdom of St. Peter as Rome is where he was Bishop last and Rome is where he was martyred.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

If, as you say, "[Eucharistic Ecclesiology] has been the model of Church [the Eastern Orthodox] have been operating on since the beginning", why is it that, as the article I cited by Nicholas Afanassieff says: "The Orthodox Church has not clearly defined her attitudes, but our 'school' teaching follows Catholic doctrine and accepts universal ecclesiology as an axiom." ?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

As per the Papacy and Vatican I, I think Catholic sources agree that there has been a legitimate development in the understanding of it.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

About the Pope having universal jurisdiction. The Pope has more than one office as you know. 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. In the family the man is head over the wife. I see it as a wise decision.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

I will have to investigate the case with Patriarchs and Metropolitans Eastern Orthodox and their relationships to local Bishops.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

Are you saying that the Pope is the only bishop of the Church?

We are discussing Universal ecclesiology vs. Eucharistic ecclesiology

Lucky7 · #**116** Jul 24, '12, 11:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Proof?

Here's a couple:

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. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. 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. . . . If someone [today] 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; first edition [A.D. 251]).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that 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 [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

ConstantineTG · #**117** Jul 24, '12, 11:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky7

Here's a couple:

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. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. 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. . . . If someone [today] 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; first edition [A.D. 251]).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that 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 [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Cyprian doesn't mention anything about Peter's chair being in Rome though. I have a bunch of Cyprian quotes when I get home later today

Lucky7 · #**118** Jul 24, '12, 11:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Cyprian doesn't mention anything about Peter's chair being in Rome though. I have a bunch of Cyprian quotes when I get home later today

So because one of the two I quoted didn't mention it that means he wasn't in Rome? The other one actually says he was in Rome! Was he lying!?

Lucky7 · #**119** Jul 24, '12, 11:33 am

Here's another one:

Peter Chrysologus

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Cavaradossi · #**120** Jul 24, '12, 11:39 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky7

Here's another one:

Peter Chrysologus

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Proof texting will avail you very little in this argument you're having with Constantine, though it might make you feel better.