Author Topic: Papacy?  (Read 699 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kmon23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 154
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Papacy?
« on: June 28, 2015, 08:31:00 PM »
What is the Oriental Orthodox view of the Papacy (supremacy + infallibility)?

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Papacy?
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2015, 09:44:36 PM »
The forst bishop to be called Pope was the Bishop of Alexandria but in spite of that see beimg held by the likes of St. Mark, Athanasius and Cyril, no Pope has ever claimed infallibility, or to my knowledge, anything approaching supremacy; I would call the Coptic Pope a Patriarch exercising a Premiership over his brother Bishops in the Holy Synod and serving as their Chief Executive.  This Pope also since the schism with Rome is the seniormost bishop of the Oriental Orthodox Church.

The other autocephalous Patriarchs and Catholicoi operate essentially using the same approach.

However, as a matter of honor relating to the ranking of the Bishophrics, much of what Ive read, inclusimg a pamphlet at the bookstore of St. Anthonys, assumimg I read it correctly, suggests that some OO do accept the idea of a Petrine primacy.  The Copts are very proud of the tradition of St. Mark beimg sent to Alexandria by St. Peter, and the Syriacs are even more proud of the fact that St. Peter first founded the Church of Antioch before moving to Rome.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Kmon23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 154
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Re: Papacy?
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2015, 10:07:25 PM »
Okay that is very interesting. I saw a comment by a Syro Malankara Catholic saying Oriental Orthodox generally hold to a high petrine view. Hence I was curious on the veracity of the comment.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 10:07:45 PM by Kmon23 »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Papacy?
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2015, 11:41:42 PM »
I think we need to stress something from your source:  "Syro Malankara Catholic"

I read an article from a Malankara Syrian Orthodox (under the Syrian Orthodox Church) that connects the Apostolic origins of the churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Syria with the person of St. Peter, and that all churches should be subject to these three.  He promised to explain Armenia in another article, which I never found or seen.  Maybe he hasn't written it yet.  But the fact is, and I cannot speak for the Syriac Orthodox Church, but it seems this article is connected to the heated issue between the Malankara Syrian Orthodox and the Malankara Orthodox (independent) factions.  I would like to read what the Syrian Orthodox do in fact teach.

The Coptic Church rejects the high Petrine view and finds the Apostolic succession to be equal on all Apostles.  HH Pope Shenouda has even tried to elevate the status of St. Mark as that independently from St. Peter.  There is a tradition in our church where we connect the argument St. Paul had with St. Barnabas as the means by which St. Mark went to Alexandria alone later (cf Acts 15), and not necessarily as a result of St. Peter sending St. Mark to Egypt.  This is however in contradiction to Bishop Severus, Coptic bishop of Al-Ashmumein in the 13th Century, who chronicles that St. Peter was the spiritual father of St. Mark and sent him to Alexandria (among other more ancient sources that say the same).

Nevertheless, this indicates that the Coptic Church has maintained the idea that all disciples have the Apostolic authority to establish churches, even if we know that St. Mark was given the order by St. Peter.  We cannot say St. Peter ordered St. Paul in his ministries.  Neither can we really say that for the rest of the disciples, and it is very clear who was in charge of the council of Jerusalem, and it was not St. Peter.  The authority given first to St. Peter in Matthew 16 was given to all the Apostles in Matthew 18, and would be further given to other disciples as well when the need came.  And the independent tradition handed down by St. John the Apostle to his successors is also something to consider.  That is the important issue at hand.

Furthermore, we as Copts were not afraid to condemn Rome for anything we think they did wrong.  We are after all "anti-Chalcedonians" and our very own St. Dioscorus condemned Pope Leo of Nestorianism and undermining the theology of the oneness of Christ.  The Oriental Orthodox as a whole rejected the primacy of Rome for the correct faith.  It shows that the primacy of Rome was not a dogmatic issue, but a pastoral issue, and ready to leave when we thought Rome strayed.  We have a high respect for Petrine authority in all the Apostles, but we do not recognize this authority in Rome anymore after the fifth century.  It resurfaced recently maybe in the Malankara Syrian Orthodox as a way to delegitimize the Malankara Orthodox, at least it seems to me.  But I think the Oriental Orthodox as a whole would generally agree based on the fact we all agree to condemn Chalcedon.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Stavro

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,358
Re: Papacy?
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2015, 11:50:26 PM »
Quote
This is however in contradiction to Bishop Severus, Coptic bishop of Al-Ashmumein in the 13th Century

10th century.   

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Papacy?
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2015, 11:53:12 PM »
Quote
This is however in contradiction to Bishop Severus, Coptic bishop of Al-Ashmumein in the 13th Century

10th century.

Yes!  Thank you for the correction.  My mistake  :)
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: Papacy?
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2015, 12:16:47 AM »
I think we need to stress something from your source:  "Syro Malankara Catholic"

I read an article from a Malankara Syrian Orthodox (under the Syrian Orthodox Church) that connects the Apostolic origins of the churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Syria with the person of St. Peter, and that all churches should be subject to these three.

Given that some OO have ascribed special importance to the city, has there ever been an attempt by OO to set up their own alternative papacy in Rome? This would have been impossible throughout most of history, for obvious reasons (there was a time when the Pope literally ruled much of Italy!) I find it curious that Alexandra and Antioch ended up with multiple popes/patriarchs, but Rome didn't, after either the 451 schism or the 1054 one.

I don't think this is a realistic possibility at the moment either, since Italy doesn't have much of a presence of either OO immigrants, or else the kind of disaffected/schismatic Catholics that might form the backbone of a new mass conversion (as happened in Guatemala).
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Papacy?
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2015, 12:28:06 AM »
I don't think it's valid to assume some OOs have ascribed importance to Rome based on the article I mentioned.  I am alluding to the fact that this probably arose from the Malankara/Syria divide.  So the question is a moot point until we know for sure what the Syrian church historically taught (and if I was to put my money on something, it would be that she agrees with the Coptic Church). 

Furthermore, the presence of more than one patriarchs are a result of imperial enforcement.  You don't see this in Rome because most of the time, Rome and the emperor seemed to be always working in agreeing together.  Nevertheless, there has been more than divisions of the Roman papacy due to, you guessed it, the European kings.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2015, 12:29:28 AM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: Papacy?
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2015, 12:30:49 AM »
I don't think it's valid to assume some OOs have ascribed importance to Rome based on the article I mentioned.  I am alluding to the fact that this probably arose from the Malankara/Syria divide.  So the question is a moot point until we know for sure what the Syrian church historically taught (and if I was to put my money on something, it would be that she agrees with the Coptic Church). 

Furthermore, the presence of more than one patriarchs are a result of imperial enforcement.  You don't see this in Rome because most of the time, Rome and the emperor seemed to be always working in agreeing together.  Nevertheless, there has been more than divisions of the Roman papacy due to, you guessed it, the European kings.

Wikipedia's article on the Syriac Orthodox Church has quite a lengthy section devoted to Petrine Primacy, but for all we know, that section was added by an Indian poster trying to make a polemical point.
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Papacy?
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2015, 12:34:56 AM »
It says here "However, it should be noted that Syriac Orthodox don't believe that St. Peter is indicative of the Papal Primacy, but only Petrine Primacy." I also read from St. Ephraim that the name "Cephas" was granted to all the Apostles afterwards.  I need to double check that one.

Basically, I think this does not necessarily contradict our standpoint or Orthodox theology in general.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,321
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Papacy?
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2015, 01:19:00 AM »
Indeed. Roman Catholics always conflate Petrine primacy with Papal primacy without making the connection between the two clear.
This profile is defunct as of 11/8/2017. I created it before Orthodoxy, and have used it after Orthodoxy.

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

I will likely lurk on this forum under a different name.

Offline Johncy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Syriac Orthodox Church of Malankara
Re: Papacy?
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2015, 09:28:39 AM »

Offline Pharaoh714

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
  • Lord Have Mercy! Christ Save me.
Re: Papacy?
« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2015, 09:37:03 PM »
Rome claimed Primacy over Antioch even though they were both founded by St. Peter because early on it claimed it is where St. Peters body is and it is the Imperial Captial. However, I have seen some E.O claim that the body of St. Peter is not in Rome, which is weird because if it never were... which St. Peter was Pope Leo talking too when he wrote his Tome?
"If I say, "My foot slips," Your mercy, O LORD, will hold me up. In the multitude of my anxieties within me, Your comforts delight my soul." Psalm 94:18-19