An Orthodox Pope?

[Pericles]

Can Orthodoxy recognise an Orthodox Pope as the head of any future reunified East-West church, or has the Roman Pontificate forfeited that honour?

[Michał Kalina]

Can Orthodoxy recognise an Orthodox Pope as the head of any future reunified East-West church, or has the Roman Pontificate forfeited that honour?

Christ was, is, and will be the Head of the Church.

[Cyrillic]

Can Orthodoxy recognise an Orthodox Pope as the head of any future reunified East-West church, or has the Roman Pontificate forfeited that honour?

Christ was, is, and will be the Head of the Church.

Is Christ the head of every diocese?

[Aindriú]

Can Orthodoxy recognise an Orthodox Pope as the head of any future reunified East-West church, or has the Roman Pontificate forfeited that honour?

Christ was, is, and will be the Head of the Church.

Congratulations on not answering the question. I'll forward that up to the bishop.

[Alveus Lacuna]

Is Christ the head of every diocese?

Excellent!

[Justin Kolodziej]

huh, y'all lost me 

Certainly a hypothetical Orthodox Pope in a reunited Orthodox Church would be honored as, and act as, the first among equals, but not the head of anything but the Diocese of Rome 

[Melodist]

Perhaps the office of the Pope could function as it did before the schism. The only problem is everyone seems to hold a different opinion about how that office functioned.

[choy]

There should be a permanent synod of all the Churches composed of the Patriarchs and Primates, and the Pope will be the presider of this synod.  They should meet once or twice a year to work out inter-Church issues and also other broad issues.  I think this is an urgent need that we have and this would be a good role for the Orthodox Pope moving forward.

[choy]

Can Orthodoxy recognise an Orthodox Pope as the head of any future reunified East-West church, or has the Roman Pontificate forfeited that honour?

Christ was, is, and will be the Head of the Church.

Is Christ the head of every diocese?

Of course.  The bishop is the representation of Christ in every diocese.

[biro]

Can Orthodoxy recognise an Orthodox Pope as the head of any future reunified East-West church, or has the Roman Pontificate forfeited that honour?

There's never going to be any reunion.

[Aindriú]

Can Orthodoxy recognise an Orthodox Pope as the head of any future reunified East-West church, or has the Roman Pontificate forfeited that honour?

Christ was, is, and will be the Head of the Church.

Is Christ the head of every diocese?

Of course.  The bishop is the representation of Christ in every diocese.

Woah, now. Christ doesn't need a representative, remember? Christ is head of the Church. This is why there is no need for a Pope.

[Melodist]

There's never going to be any reunion.

Not with that attitude 

[Nephi]

Woah, now. Christ doesn't need a representative, remember? Christ is head of the Church. This is why there is no need for a Pope.

I'm not sure if "representative" is necessarily equivalent to "head."

[Father H]

Can Orthodoxy recognise an Orthodox Pope as the head of any future reunified East-West church, or has the Roman Pontificate forfeited that honour?

Christ was, is, and will be the Head of the Church.

Congratulations on not answering the question. I'll forward that up to the bishop.

Michal's answer was implicitly a "no." 

[Father H]

Can Orthodoxy recognise an Orthodox Pope as the head of any future reunified East-West church, or has the Roman Pontificate forfeited that honour?

Christ was, is, and will be the Head of the Church.

Is Christ the head of every diocese?

Of course.  The bishop is the representation of Christ in every diocese.

Woah, now. Christ doesn't need a representative, remember? Christ is head of the Church. This is why there is no need for a Pope.

Habemus Papam!  And here he is:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theodoros_II_(Choreftakis)_of_Alexandria

btw Isa, you are asleep at the wheel.  Normally you are the one posting these things, but I understand, you wish to share the wealth.   

[Aindriú]

Woah, now. Christ doesn't need a representative, remember? Christ is head of the Church. This is why there is no need for a Pope.

I'm not sure if "representative" is necessarily equivalent to "head."

 

This sounds like the beginning of a strawman.

[Aindriú]

Can Orthodoxy recognise an Orthodox Pope as the head of any future reunified East-West church, or has the Roman Pontificate forfeited that honour?

Christ was, is, and will be the Head of the Church.

Is Christ the head of every diocese?

Of course.  The bishop is the representation of Christ in every diocese.

Woah, now. Christ doesn't need a representative, remember? Christ is head of the Church. This is why there is no need for a Pope.

Habemus Papam!  And here he is:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theodoros_II_(Choreftakis)_of_Alexandria

btw Isa, you are asleep at the wheel.  Normally you are the one posting these things, but I understand, you wish to share the wealth.   

Sweet! Word games!

B for 500

[Nephi]

Woah, now. Christ doesn't need a representative, remember? Christ is head of the Church. This is why there is no need for a Pope.

I'm not sure if "representative" is necessarily equivalent to "head."

 

This sounds like the beginning of a strawman.

I was saying is "representative" does not equal "head," which is what you seemed to imply. That is all.

[dzheremi]

The Orthodox Pope (no matter which Tawadros II you think that is) does not think he's head of the Church in the first place, so the way the question is worded is weird. It's probably better to say that if Rome ever gets its act together in terms that would make the Orthodox see that it is serious about this "union" business, this question would be non-existent (because Rome would know better).

[Father H]

Can Orthodoxy recognise an Orthodox Pope as the head of any future reunified East-West church, or has the Roman Pontificate forfeited that honour?

Christ was, is, and will be the Head of the Church.

Is Christ the head of every diocese?

Of course.  The bishop is the representation of Christ in every diocese.

Woah, now. Christ doesn't need a representative, remember? Christ is head of the Church. This is why there is no need for a Pope.

Habemus Papam!  And here he is:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theodoros_II_(Choreftakis)_of_Alexandria

btw Isa, you are asleep at the wheel.  Normally you are the one posting these things, but I understand, you wish to share the wealth.   

Sweet! Word games!

B for 500

I play no games in theology.  Words have meanings.  Yours were misused if you were meaning to use them from an Orthodox perspective. 

[choy]

Woah, now. Christ doesn't need a representative, remember? Christ is head of the Church. This is why there is no need for a Pope.

I'm not sure if "representative" is necessarily equivalent to "head."

Well a Bishop is the head of the local Church.  But that fits more the Eucharistic model than having one supreme overall head other than Jesus Christ.

[Cyrillic]

Woah, now. Christ doesn't need a representative, remember? Christ is head of the Church. This is why there is no need for a Pope.

I'm not sure if "representative" is necessarily equivalent to "head."

Well a Bishop is the head of the local Church.  But that fits more the Eucharistic model than having one supreme overall head other than Jesus Christ.

But the local church is the Church in its fullness, right? 

[Shanghaiski]

Perhaps the office of the Pope could function as it did before the schism. The only problem is everyone seems to hold a different opinion about how that office functioned.

+1

[ialmisry]

Can Orthodoxy recognise an Orthodox Pope as the head of any future reunified East-West church, or has the Roman Pontificate forfeited that honour?

Christ was, is, and will be the Head of the Church.

Is Christ the head of every diocese?

Of course.  The bishop is the representation of Christ in every diocese.

Woah, now. Christ doesn't need a representative, remember? Christ is head of the Church. This is why there is no need for a Pope.

Habemus Papam!  And here he is:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theodoros_II_(Choreftakis)_of_Alexandria

btw Isa, you are asleep at the wheel.  Normally you are the one posting these things, but I understand, you wish to share the wealth.   

Sweet! Word games!

B for 500

Evidently not, as the Vatican forbids the patriarchs it tries to foist on Alexandria (3, one of which is now defunct) to take the title of the see: "Pope" (the original).

[Cyrillic]

Evidently not, as the Vatican forbids the patriarchs it tries to foist on Alexandria (3, one of which is now defunct) to take the title of the see: "Pope" (the original).

Was the Catholic Pope of Alexandria allowed to keep his title of Judge of the World?

[choy]

Evidently not, as the Vatican forbids the patriarchs it tries to foist on Alexandria (3, one of which is now defunct) to take the title of the see: "Pope" (the original).

Was the Catholic Pope of Alexandria allowed to keep his title of Judge of the World?

Catholics like keeping Orthodox traditions without necessarily keeping their meanings.

[username!]

Can Orthodoxy recognise an Orthodox Pope as the head of any future reunified East-West church, or has the Roman Pontificate forfeited that honour?

There's never going to be any reunion.

Reunion has to be done of the notion that the Roman church is still the same church it was before communion broke.  If it isn't then there isn't anything to re-unite with.

[ialmisry]

Evidently not, as the Vatican forbids the patriarchs it tries to foist on Alexandria (3, one of which is now defunct) to take the title of the see: "Pope" (the original).

Was the Catholic Pope of Alexandria allowed to keep his title of Judge of the World?

The Catholic Pope has.

The Vatican's can not.

[dzheremi]

Evidently not, as the Vatican forbids the patriarchs it tries to foist on Alexandria (3, one of which is now defunct) to take the title of the see: "Pope" (the original).

Was the Catholic Pope of Alexandria allowed to keep his title of Judge of the World?

Catholics like keeping Orthodox traditions without necessarily keeping their meanings.

So you mean that they don't like to keep Orthodox traditions, then. You of all people should know that is the problem with all of their "Eastern lungs"...they try to keep the form, but mess with the content, and you end up with something that is neither fish nor fowl.

[choy]

Evidently not, as the Vatican forbids the patriarchs it tries to foist on Alexandria (3, one of which is now defunct) to take the title of the see: "Pope" (the original).

Was the Catholic Pope of Alexandria allowed to keep his title of Judge of the World?

Catholics like keeping Orthodox traditions without necessarily keeping their meanings.

So you mean that they don't like to keep Orthodox traditions, then. You of all people should know that is the problem with all of their "Eastern lungs"...they try to keep the form, but mess with the content, and you end up with something that is neither fish nor fowl.

To tell you the truth I am sort of disappointed when I realized that.  But all is not lost.  As my Orthodox priest would say, sometimes you have to "fake it".  That if you keep doing something externally, eventually it will form you internally to conform to what the external is.  Perhaps if externally they can be Orthodox, someday they will come to understand its meaning and truly become Orthodox, and hopefully "infect" the rest of the Catholic Church with Orthodoxy.

[dzheremi]

Not to get too off topic (oops...already there), but that idea would make much more sense if the ECCs weren't churches of people who already left Orthodoxy for Rome. That's the whole reason they exist...to not be Orthodox anymore. Granted, this many centuries or decades later they are primarily composed of people who were born into this arrangement (and Latins fleeing the banality and irreverence of Rome while apparently still desiring to operate within the structure that made that irreverence standard for the largest of the churches in the communion, but that's another story). But it's not as if Rome can stop individuals from any rite from returning to Orthodoxy. It seems that for some it's more of a question of "where would we go if not here?" (And I don't mean that as an allusion to John 6:68; a Maronite acquaintance of mine recently told me that he should like to become Syriac Orthodox, as that is the most likely mother church of the Maronites if you do not accept Rome's contention that the Maronites "never broke communion with Rome", but that he feels it wouldn't fit quite right, as the Maronites are both Arabized and 'Europeanized' in a way that many Syriacs are not...so it's more like "this doesn't feel right, but it feels the least not-right of all options, because it's the one I know.")

Anyway, in an attempt to make this post relate to the OP more directly: It strikes me that both OO and EO already have an Orthodox Pope in the form of their respective Alexandrian Patriarchs, so I have to wonder if the recognition of an additional Orthodox Pope of Rome in some sort of 'special' role wouldn't in some sense be buying into Roman claims that were not universally accepted even back when we were all in union. I'm thinking here of Pope Leo I's letter to Pope Dioscoros of Alexandria, written some years before Chalcedon, which has been discussed here before (see this thread), which is one of the several examples of requests from the Roman Pope of ancient times which were not heeded (poster "Witega" mentions several examples in post #7 of the linked thread). In the hypothetical world of a reunited Eastern-Western Church (I would include us OO in this, too, for the sake of argument), is it likely that the Roman Pope would accept being ignored, dismissed, or (heaven forbid) even deposed by those he had previously been understood to be "above" in some real, authority/governance-based sense? I think the answer to that question (which I think is a "no", and shows no signs of changing in my lifetime) says more about what Orthodoxy would or wouldn't do with a Roman Pope professing Orthodoxy. As I've often tried to tell my Eastern Catholic friends, the ability (or "privilege", in their case) to teach your own, non-Rome centered theology means nothing if you cannot also teach against the errors of Rome on account of their incompatibility with your own theology. I would think the same would hold for the Roman Bishop in the reunited Church, when push comes to shove (i.e., he would have to be able to be deposed, as is in the Orthodox Church, not merely tender his resignation if he can be convinced to do so, as in the Latin Church).

[choy]

Not to get too off topic (oops...already there), but that idea would make much more sense if the ECCs weren't churches of people who already left Orthodoxy for Rome. That's the whole reason they exist...to not be Orthodox anymore. Granted, this many centuries or decades later they are primarily composed of people who were born into this arrangement (and Latins fleeing the banality and irreverence of Rome while apparently still desiring to operate within the structure that made that irreverence standard for the largest of the churches in the communion, but that's another story). But it's not as if Rome can stop individuals from any rite from returning to Orthodoxy. It seems that for some it's more of a question of "where would we go if not here?" (And I don't mean that as an allusion to John 6:68; a Maronite acquaintance of mine recently told me that he should like to become Syriac Orthodox, as that is the most likely mother church of the Maronites if you do not accept Rome's contention that the Maronites "never broke communion with Rome", but that he feels it wouldn't fit quite right, as the Maronites are both Arabized and 'Europeanized' in a way that many Syriacs are not...so it's more like "this doesn't feel right, but it feels the least not-right of all options, because it's the one I know.")

Every unitate Church has their own story so it is so hard to generalize here about the reasons why certain bishops or priests came into union with Rome.  It definitely is not a simple, "they wanted to be in communion with the Pope" or "they want to leave Orthodoxy."

I wonder though, in the same breath, can some Roman Catholic bishops/priests/parishes break off from Rome and come into Communion with the Orthodox Church?  And if so, would their bishop be the Orthodox Bishop of Rome?

[Melodist]

I wonder though, in the same breath, can some Roman Catholic bishops/priests/parishes break off from Rome and come into Communion with the Orthodox Church?  And if so, would their bishop be the Orthodox Bishop of Rome?

They would be the bishop of the city in which they preside.

[ialmisry]

Btw, from the Council of Carthage (418):

Canon 101. (Greek civ. bis)

Of making peace between the Churches of Rome and Alexandria

It seemed good that a letter be written to the holy Pope Innocent concerning the dissension between the Churches of Rome and Alexandria, so that each Church might keep peace with the other as the Lord commanded.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

112. It has pleased the Council furthermore to decree that as regards the dissension and discord between the Roman and the Alexandrian Churches a letter be written to the most holy Pope Innocent with the object of making each of the two Churches keep the peace with the other, which the Lord enjoins.

Interpretation.

Some difference or variance, as appears from the present Canon, had ensued between the Romans and the Alexandrians, on account of which it appeared reasonable to this C. to write to the Pope, who at that time was innocent I, with a view to making the two churches effect a reconciliation and make peace between themselves, just as the Lord enjoined by saying at one time, "I leave you peace" (John 14:27) (Note of Translator. — In both the A.V. and the R.V. of the English Bible these words are mistakenly and ridiculously translated as "Peace I leave with you!" without any other conceivable excuse than the stupidity of the translators.), and at another time, "Be and remain at peace amongst yourselves" (Mark 9:50). (Note of Translator. — In the A.V. we find this passage translated "Have peace one with another" in an effort to correct the A.V., but in reality making the sense worse yet, since in the original Greek it means not only "become or be" — momentarily, but also "remain" — forever, "at peace amongst yourselves." i.e., with each other, or each one with all the others of you; and not partly at peace, some one of you with some other one of you, at this particular time). But note here that the regional Council is correcting and giving advice to the monarch of Rome.

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635086

[dzheremi]

Every unitate Church has their own story so it is so hard to generalize here about the reasons why certain bishops or priests came into union with Rome.  It definitely is not a simple, "they wanted to be in communion with the Pope" or "they want to leave Orthodoxy."

Wait, wait, though...that's not what I wrote. I wrote that they exist to not be Orthodox anymore. Not that they don't want to be Orthodox. There are plenty of Eastern Catholics who want to be Orthodox, and/or already consider themselves to already be so. That makes no difference as to why their churches exist. They may have come into union with Rome under some other pretenses, but in the real world the Roman communion is defined by the relation (submission) of the Eastern Catholics to Rome, not Rome's relation to them.

[Peter J]

I would think the same would hold for the Roman Bishop in the reunited Church, when push comes to shove (i.e., he would have to be able to be deposed, as is in the Orthodox Church, not merely tender his resignation if he can be convinced to do so, as in the Latin Church).

Tender his resignation? Who ever heard of such a thing?

[Peter J]

Perhaps if externally they can be Orthodox, someday they will come to understand its meaning and truly become Orthodox, and hopefully "infect" the rest of the Catholic Church with Orthodoxy.

A week or so ago, I made a note to respond to this post. However, I'm still not sure what I want to say to it -- I just can't decide whether or not I find it strange for Orthodox to dream the dream that you just described.

:thoughtful:

[choy]

Perhaps if externally they can be Orthodox, someday they will come to understand its meaning and truly become Orthodox, and hopefully "infect" the rest of the Catholic Church with Orthodoxy.

A week or so ago, I made a note to respond to this post. However, I'm still not sure what I want to say to it -- I just can't decide whether or not I find it strange for Orthodox to dream the dream that you just described.

:thoughtful:

Well, if the ECs can be influcence and be Latinized, I'm just thinking, why can't it happen the other way?  Why can't a very Orthodox ECChurch "infect" the rest of the Catholic Churches with Orthodoxy?  I think that happened with the Second Vatican Council when there was influence from the Eastern Churches especially on the issue of vernacular languages and congregational participation in the Liturgy.  I think Rome jusst didn't know how to handle what was suggested by the Melkite Patriarch which resulted in today's mess.  But I believe it is a good start of a long, long process, and these bumps in the road are just the birth pangs.

[username!]

I don't know if the fact that the RCC would have to be accepted into Orthodoxy just like any other mass conversion of any other non-Orthodox group is taken into account.  Perhaps it would just be made to be in communion by gesture and prayer, it really would depend on the Patriarch of Constantinople and the synod attached to him.  Only then when a true Roman Patriarch is re-established would there be an Orthodox pope.

[Ersaia]

why?
Do you want to go in a plaza and cry because you can see the pope?
why?
Pope and all these-pope-worship is something completely strange for me
and what about this papal infallibility?
who is he?


No Orthodox Pope for me, thanks

[ialmisry]

why?
Do you want to go in a plaza and cry because you can see the pope?
why?
Pope and all these-pope-worship is something completely strange for me
and what about this papal infallibility?
who is he?


No Orthodox Pope for me, thanks

We have one, and if you want to remain in communion, so do you:

[ialmisry]

I don't know if the fact that the RCC would have to be accepted into Orthodoxy just like any other mass conversion of any other non-Orthodox group is taken into account.  Perhaps it would just be made to be in communion by gesture and prayer, it really would depend on the Patriarch of Constantinople and the synod attached to him.  Only then when a true Roman Patriarch is re-established would there be an Orthodox pope.

Not quite.  We don't have a supreme pontiff in Constantinople.

For one thing, the Vatican has parishes and bishops in the jurisdiction of every Orthodox Church.  Even Greece.

[Cyrillic]

An Orthodox Pope?

[ialmisry]

An Orthodox Pope?

Not quite yet.

[Ersaia]

why?
Do you want to go in a plaza and cry because you can see the pope?
why?
Pope and all these-pope-worship is something completely strange for me
and what about this papal infallibility?
who is he?


No Orthodox Pope for me, thanks

We have one, and if you want to remain in communion, so do you:

I am absolutely sure that he don't think he is what the Pope of Rome consider he is. He is just one of our Patriarchs.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: An Orthodox Pope?