Author Topic: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?  (Read 10269 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Christopher McAvoy

  • Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 466
    • St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary
True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« on: October 07, 2015, 01:42:21 AM »
Yesterday on a separate forum there was a comment made elsewhere about it being one thing to suspend belief that Pope Francis is Pope and quite another to suspend belief in the the papacy altogether. It was than said by a Roman catholic fellow that Orthodoxy is schism and heresy combined, because it does not have communion with the current papacy but also because it denies the papacy altogether.

I have always felt that there was an acknowledgement and respect of the papacy before 1054 by the Orthodox Church and that it has never actually been "denied". If the Orthodox Church considers Pope Leo and Pope Gregory of Rome to be important church fathers and prayed for Roman popes historically, I do not think that is denying the papacy. It seems to me that the Orthodox Church has never denied the value of the Pope of Rome but has simply not felt a need to address the Pope of Rome or replace him after he ceased to be Orthodox, except insofar as the Patriarch of constantinople or Moscow has been a 2nd or 3rd Rome.

what say you?
« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 01:45:36 AM by Christopher McAvoy »
"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,279
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2015, 02:00:55 AM »
Orthodoxy has a Pope.  NBD.



Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2015, 08:10:10 AM »
We deny the Roman Catholic redefinition of the Papacy. If you are referring to the historic Papacy, then no.

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline ZealousZeal

  • Cosmic Knowledge Fish
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,980
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2015, 08:46:19 AM »
I feel like it's such an odd question in a sense. What is the papacy? Is it the Bishop of Rome? It would be silly to deny that the Bishop of Rome exists. Is it a Bishop of Rome who speaks infallibly on the faith and has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered"? Then, yeah, not so much. We don't believe in that.
You want your belt to buckle, not your chair.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,270
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2015, 09:07:55 AM »
Orthodoxy denies the dogmas of Papal supremacy and infallibility, which means we fall under the anathemas of Vatican I. So there's a case to be made that we are heretics from the Catholic point of view, though nowadays almost everyone in the Catholic Church seems to be scrambling to interpret Vatican I to mean anything other than what it actually says.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2015, 09:13:52 AM »
I feel like it's such an odd question in a sense. What is the papacy? Is it the Bishop of Rome? It would be silly to deny that the Bishop of Rome exists. Is it a Bishop of Rome who speaks infallibly on the faith and has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered"? Then, yeah, not so much. We don't believe in that.
^
Yep, this. We deny his claim of supremacy and infallibility. That is all. If he were to retract that, it would go a great way in rebuilding the divide. Of course, he can't really do that because it has been set in stone by one of their ecumenical counsels which puts them in a bit of a catch-22.
God bless!

Offline Christopher McAvoy

  • Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 466
    • St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2015, 12:05:08 PM »
Thanks. I think the answer would be "No, Orthodoxy does not deny the historic purpose of the papacy but it does deny particular post 11th century , particularly 19th century developments in it's role". Still I suppose I see how one can interpret it as it denying the the papacy if one thinks about it in a very absolute way, but from a historic point of view it does not deny it. Have a great day.

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,696
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2015, 01:34:48 PM »
I feel like it's such an odd question in a sense. What is the papacy? Is it the Bishop of Rome? It would be silly to deny that the Bishop of Rome exists. Is it a Bishop of Rome who speaks infallibly on the faith and has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered"? Then, yeah, not so much. We don't believe in that.
^
Yep, this. We deny his claim of supremacy and infallibility. That is all. If he were to retract that, it would go a great way in rebuilding the divide. Of course, he can't really do that because it has been set in stone by one of their ecumenical counsels which puts them in a bit of a catch-22.

It's a Catch-22 for them, certainly, but I doubt we would be generous with them were they to collectively repent of it and return to an orthodox understanding of the papacy.  We'd probably be suspicious, ask them how it is possible for them to repent, conclude it is a trap, etc. 

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2015, 01:40:43 PM »
I feel like it's such an odd question in a sense. What is the papacy? Is it the Bishop of Rome? It would be silly to deny that the Bishop of Rome exists. Is it a Bishop of Rome who speaks infallibly on the faith and has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered"? Then, yeah, not so much. We don't believe in that.
^
Yep, this. We deny his claim of supremacy and infallibility. That is all. If he were to retract that, it would go a great way in rebuilding the divide. Of course, he can't really do that because it has been set in stone by one of their ecumenical counsels which puts them in a bit of a catch-22.

It's a Catch-22 for them, certainly, but I doubt we would be generous with them were they to collectively repent of it and return to an orthodox understanding of the papacy.  We'd probably be suspicious, ask them how it is possible for them to repent, conclude it is a trap, etc.
Well, there is certainly a lot of water under that bridge, but no one will know how that would ever work out unless the Pope renounces those doctrines. Notice me not holding my breath for that to happen.
God bless!

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2015, 10:51:38 PM »
I don't think you can say that Orthodoxy denies the role of the papacy as a first among equals, however, it does deny the doctrine that the bishop of Rome has authority that is "both episcopal and immediate" over the entire Church. When most Roman Catholics think of the papacy, they think of the latter of the two definitions.
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Amatorus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,105
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2015, 11:08:22 PM »
How sore are we supposed to be about the Fourth Crusade still?

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2015, 11:08:53 PM »
How sore are we supposed to be about the Fourth Crusade still?
:laugh:
God bless!

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2015, 11:38:27 PM »
How sore are we supposed to be about the Fourth Crusade still?

Less sore about the sacking of Constantinople, more sore about the establishment of Latin hierarchies to replace our own.
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,270
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2015, 09:07:44 AM »
How sore are we supposed to be about the Fourth Crusade still?

2 minutes of hate is the prescribed daily devotion.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline Amatorus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,105
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2015, 10:57:15 AM »
How sore are we supposed to be about the Fourth Crusade still?

Less sore about the sacking of Constantinople, more sore about the establishment of Latin hierarchies to replace our own.

Emperor Baudouin II did nothing wrong!

Offline Severian

  • My posts on this site don't necessarily reflect my current position on any given subject.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,642
  • Pat. St. Severus, pray for my family & friends
    • St. Severus of Antioch's Writings
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox Christian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2015, 05:18:01 PM »
"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,562
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2015, 06:03:56 PM »
How sore are we supposed to be about the Fourth Crusade still?

2 minutes of hate is the prescribed daily devotion.

If we're talking about the Bolt Thrower album, I'm not angry at all.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,279
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2015, 07:02:20 AM »
Orthodoxy has a Pope.  NBD.


*Ahem* ;)



Oh, hey, he's dressed like someone of the Byzantine faith.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Severian

  • My posts on this site don't necessarily reflect my current position on any given subject.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,642
  • Pat. St. Severus, pray for my family & friends
    • St. Severus of Antioch's Writings
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox Christian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2015, 07:03:55 AM »
^The Roman Imperial court regalia is pretty cool, I must admit.
"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2015, 07:55:47 AM »
True and false.

True: Orthodoxy has a Pope. The Pope of Alexandria. Orthodoxy further accepts the Bishop of Rome's historic Papacy.

False: Orthodoxy does not accept the Papacy as defined by Vatican I & Vatican II, and how the Roman Church has defined herself.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 07:57:38 AM by xOrthodox4Christx »
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.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #20 on: December 08, 2015, 09:45:40 AM »
Orthodoxy is the natural environment of the Papacy. Because Rome abandoned it, it has been submitting the many churches under it to a false form of papacy.

The First-Among-Equals in the Church:

* Is not infallible in any circunstance;
* Does not have universal jurisdiction over the whole church;
* Does not have ordinary or extraordinary powers over any church besides his own see;
* Cannot act in the name of the Church in motu proprio;
* Does not have an intransferable power;

* Has actual ecclesiastical presiding power over ad hoc ecumenical councils convened to counter some heresy - organizational and logistics authority can rely on supporting lay authority or local bishop;

* Could have actual organizational power over a standing synod of legates of all Canonical Orthodox Churches - that would be something new due to contemporary technology, but in spirit of the ecclesiology of the Church. This standing synod of legates presided by the first-among-equals would deal mainly with issues of canonical order, acting as liasson between regions with canonical issues, their mother churches and the First See;

* Can speak in the name of the Church when repeating the consensual opinion of the collegiate of Patriarchs (real ex cathedra, as per Mat 16:18, John 21:18)

* Can receive appeals for official canonical advice. He *may* use his authority restricted to the synod of legates and/or ecumenical council to enforce that;

* He must use his enormous non-formal influence, the natural "soft power" of the position, for the greater good of the faithful (John 21:15-17);

* Can loose his role as First-Among-Equals to the next in line in the dyptics if confirming his see and equally misguided predescessors in a heretic teaching after much admonition from his brother patriarchs.

Rome could return by agreeing with the above and annulling the Anathemas of Vatican I regarding the papacy, annulling Unam Sanctam and all statements in agreement with them.

We could have a "Joint Declaration" defining the Orthodox filioque outside the Symbolf of Faith but that also mandates the original unchanged symbol to be the norm.

 I think we would expect some changes in Novus Ordo to prevent certain abuses as well as to make it more in line with the West's own 1st millenium liturgical traditions.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 09:52:59 AM by Fabio Leite »
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #21 on: December 08, 2015, 10:52:04 AM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2016, 09:13:10 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2016, 09:18:58 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this
So Jesus came to start a rock band. I'll remember that the next time I hear someone preach that rock music is of the devil.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2016, 09:28:11 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2016, 09:34:30 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,007
  • It's raw!
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #26 on: January 03, 2016, 09:35:16 PM »
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

You forgot the part about how the singer wanted to change from traditional folk to deathcore music.



Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2016, 09:37:44 PM »
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

You forgot the part about how the singer wanted to change from traditional folk to deathcore music.
which singer are you referring to?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2016, 09:39:31 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2016, 09:45:02 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same

Where is St. Peter, that I may do so?

According to the Holy Apostles, Christ is the Head of the Church. The Holy Spirit continued Christ’s earthly presence as Helper (some translations say Comforter) and Teacher of mankind. The absolute need for an absolutely singular mortal Head of the Church would seem to be an innovation at best, a heretical misapprehension of the Gospel at worst.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 09:48:35 PM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2016, 09:50:24 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2016, 09:51:52 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same

Where is St. Peter, that I may do so?

According to the Holy Apostles, Christ is the Head of the Church. The Holy Spirit continued Christ’s earthly presence as Helper (some translations say Comforter) and Teacher of mankind. The absolute need for an absolutely singular mortal Head of the Church would seem to be an innovation at best, a heretical misapprehension of the Gospel at worst.
so you reject apostolic succession? after St Peter died the church changed so that there isn't a leader among the bishops anyore? is this your belief?

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #32 on: January 03, 2016, 09:52:21 PM »
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?

Were Antioch and Alexandria in schism throughout that millennium, then?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #33 on: January 03, 2016, 09:55:32 PM »
so you reject apostolic succession? after St Peter died the church changed so that there isn't a leader among the bishops anyore? is this your belief?

Apostolic succession is not the same thing as Petrine succession. Bishops are the leaders of the Church. You make many assumptions based on the way you've been taught, and so your arguments aren't going to make sense to others.

Has no one given you grief about being a sedevacantist but making your kind of arguments? I guess it would just be too easy.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #34 on: January 03, 2016, 09:55:51 PM »
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?

Were Antioch and Alexandria in schism throughout that millennium, then?
why would they be in schism?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #35 on: January 03, 2016, 09:59:02 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?
What evidence do you have to support your belief that for the first millennium the Eastern Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St. Peter? I'd always read that for the first thousand years the Eastern Church recognized many successors to St. Peter outside of Rome.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #36 on: January 03, 2016, 11:44:51 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?
What evidence do you have to support your belief that for the first millennium the Eastern Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St. Peter? I'd always read that for the first thousand years the Eastern Church recognized many successors to St. Peter outside of Rome.
here's  a good article by Fr Ray Ryland that I believe speaks to this issue,let me know your thoughts

About A.D. 96, for example, in the pontificate of Clement I, a faction in the Church in Corinth created a schism by ousting some bishops and presbyters. Pope Clement wrote a strongly worded letter to that church. He begins his letter apologizing for his delay "in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community." Vigorous persecution under Nero and Domitian had prevented the Church at Rome from intervening earlier.

Clement immediately addresses the perpetrators of the schism, calling their action "that execrable and godless schism so utterly foreign to the elect of God." He reproves them for presuming to assert authority over successors of the apostles. Their action, he says, is "no small sin." He does not ask for more details in order to make his judgment. He simply passes judgment on the schismatics and orders them to submit to their pastors.

In what one author has called "the epiphany of the Roman primacy," Clement commands the schismatics to be "obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit." He warns them, "But should any disobey what has been said by him [Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger."

Clement hardly could assert more strongly his assurance that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and therefore that he speaks with the voice of Christ. He concludes by saying he has sent three legates to Corinth to investigate. From other sources we know the schism was healed by Clement’s action.

Had the Church at Corinth appealed to Clement to settle the schism? Clement’s apology for the delay in intervening suggests it had. The Corinthians were not simply seeking help from some authoritative person. Were that true, they could have appealed to the apostle John, still living and in a city (Ephesus) much closer to Corinth than was Rome. No, they appealed to the successor of Peter. At the end of the first century, Rome’s authority and responsibility for settling such matters was already recognized.

No local church could exercise authority over another local church? The Corinthians never heard of this notion. They held Clement’s letter in almost as high esteem as they did sacred Scripture. Eusebius tells us that 70 years after Clement sent his letter, the Church at Corinth was still reading aloud from it every Sunday during the liturgy.

Petrine authority was not a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East. No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth. Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they created but could not overcome.


Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2016, 05:13:53 AM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?
What evidence do you have to support your belief that for the first millennium the Eastern Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St. Peter? I'd always read that for the first thousand years the Eastern Church recognized many successors to St. Peter outside of Rome.
here's  a good article by Fr Ray Ryland that I believe speaks to this issue,let me know your thoughts

About A.D. 96, for example, in the pontificate of Clement I, a faction in the Church in Corinth created a schism by ousting some bishops and presbyters. Pope Clement wrote a strongly worded letter to that church. He begins his letter apologizing for his delay "in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community." Vigorous persecution under Nero and Domitian had prevented the Church at Rome from intervening earlier.

Clement immediately addresses the perpetrators of the schism, calling their action "that execrable and godless schism so utterly foreign to the elect of God." He reproves them for presuming to assert authority over successors of the apostles. Their action, he says, is "no small sin." He does not ask for more details in order to make his judgment. He simply passes judgment on the schismatics and orders them to submit to their pastors.

In what one author has called "the epiphany of the Roman primacy," Clement commands the schismatics to be "obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit." He warns them, "But should any disobey what has been said by him [Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger."

Clement hardly could assert more strongly his assurance that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and therefore that he speaks with the voice of Christ. He concludes by saying he has sent three legates to Corinth to investigate. From other sources we know the schism was healed by Clement’s action.

Had the Church at Corinth appealed to Clement to settle the schism? Clement’s apology for the delay in intervening suggests it had. The Corinthians were not simply seeking help from some authoritative person. Were that true, they could have appealed to the apostle John, still living and in a city (Ephesus) much closer to Corinth than was Rome. No, they appealed to the successor of Peter. At the end of the first century, Rome’s authority and responsibility for settling such matters was already recognized.

No local church could exercise authority over another local church? The Corinthians never heard of this notion. They held Clement’s letter in almost as high esteem as they did sacred Scripture. Eusebius tells us that 70 years after Clement sent his letter, the Church at Corinth was still reading aloud from it every Sunday during the liturgy.

Petrine authority was not a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East. No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth. Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they created but could not overcome.
Personally, I have no problem with the primacy of Rome as the Early Church, the Early Fathers, and early Rome all understood it. I reject how popes after the fall of Old Rome reinterpreted that early primacy to justify their increasingly pompous claims to universal supremacy. I reject how Pope Pius IX railroaded his doctrine of papal infallibility through Vatican I in 1870. I reject what the Roman Catholic Church became as a consequence of Vatican I. For those doctrines I reject I see no basis in the Early Church's understanding of the place of primacy they granted the Church of Rome. I also don't see Rome's early primacy as solely an inheritance they received from St. Peter, for other churches of that time could lay equal claim to the heritage of St. Peter their founder. Petrine authority isn't a property unique to Rome.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2016, 10:06:38 AM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2016, 01:25:44 PM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view?
AFAIK, yes, it is the official Orthodox view. If being founded by St. Peter is the only qualification a church needs for primacy, why does the Church in Antioch not have the same primacy, seeing that she has an equally valid claim to being founded by St. Peter?

Quote
I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
St. Cyprian's teaching that every orthodox bishop sits in St. Peter's chair. What do you have to support your claim?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 01:33:53 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2016, 01:38:03 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?
What evidence do you have to support your belief that for the first millennium the Eastern Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St. Peter? I'd always read that for the first thousand years the Eastern Church recognized many successors to St. Peter outside of Rome.
here's  a good article by Fr Ray Ryland that I believe speaks to this issue,let me know your thoughts

About A.D. 96, for example, in the pontificate of Clement I, a faction in the Church in Corinth created a schism by ousting some bishops and presbyters. Pope Clement wrote a strongly worded letter to that church. He begins his letter apologizing for his delay "in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community." Vigorous persecution under Nero and Domitian had prevented the Church at Rome from intervening earlier.

Clement immediately addresses the perpetrators of the schism, calling their action "that execrable and godless schism so utterly foreign to the elect of God." He reproves them for presuming to assert authority over successors of the apostles. Their action, he says, is "no small sin." He does not ask for more details in order to make his judgment. He simply passes judgment on the schismatics and orders them to submit to their pastors.

In what one author has called "the epiphany of the Roman primacy," Clement commands the schismatics to be "obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit." He warns them, "But should any disobey what has been said by him [Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger."

Clement hardly could assert more strongly his assurance that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and therefore that he speaks with the voice of Christ. He concludes by saying he has sent three legates to Corinth to investigate. From other sources we know the schism was healed by Clement’s action.

Had the Church at Corinth appealed to Clement to settle the schism? Clement’s apology for the delay in intervening suggests it had. The Corinthians were not simply seeking help from some authoritative person. Were that true, they could have appealed to the apostle John, still living and in a city (Ephesus) much closer to Corinth than was Rome. No, they appealed to the successor of Peter. At the end of the first century, Rome’s authority and responsibility for settling such matters was already recognized.

No local church could exercise authority over another local church? The Corinthians never heard of this notion. They held Clement’s letter in almost as high esteem as they did sacred Scripture. Eusebius tells us that 70 years after Clement sent his letter, the Church at Corinth was still reading aloud from it every Sunday during the liturgy.

Petrine authority was not a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East. No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth. Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they created but could not overcome.

Your author is interpreting St. Clement of Rome in a way his epistles just won't bear. Orthodox accept and are familiar with the epistles, I myself have read them a few times, and there's no way with basic reading comprehension to say the burden of the letters was Roman superiority, or even that the letters are about Rome or St. Clement at all. He is writing a letter to that parish about that parish's problems, he is otherwise offering the Church at large a variety of edification, in other words, he is writing in the vein of the epistles of the Apostles.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #41 on: January 04, 2016, 01:41:01 PM »
Oh and ironically for you his most explicit burden in the epistle your author is quoting from is that the parish obey their bishop.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2016, 03:05:11 AM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?
What evidence do you have to support your belief that for the first millennium the Eastern Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St. Peter? I'd always read that for the first thousand years the Eastern Church recognized many successors to St. Peter outside of Rome.
here's  a good article by Fr Ray Ryland that I believe speaks to this issue,let me know your thoughts

About A.D. 96, for example, in the pontificate of Clement I, a faction in the Church in Corinth created a schism by ousting some bishops and presbyters. Pope Clement wrote a strongly worded letter to that church. He begins his letter apologizing for his delay "in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community." Vigorous persecution under Nero and Domitian had prevented the Church at Rome from intervening earlier.

Clement immediately addresses the perpetrators of the schism, calling their action "that execrable and godless schism so utterly foreign to the elect of God." He reproves them for presuming to assert authority over successors of the apostles. Their action, he says, is "no small sin." He does not ask for more details in order to make his judgment. He simply passes judgment on the schismatics and orders them to submit to their pastors.

In what one author has called "the epiphany of the Roman primacy," Clement commands the schismatics to be "obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit." He warns them, "But should any disobey what has been said by him [Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger."

Clement hardly could assert more strongly his assurance that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and therefore that he speaks with the voice of Christ. He concludes by saying he has sent three legates to Corinth to investigate. From other sources we know the schism was healed by Clement’s action.

Had the Church at Corinth appealed to Clement to settle the schism? Clement’s apology for the delay in intervening suggests it had. The Corinthians were not simply seeking help from some authoritative person. Were that true, they could have appealed to the apostle John, still living and in a city (Ephesus) much closer to Corinth than was Rome. No, they appealed to the successor of Peter. At the end of the first century, Rome’s authority and responsibility for settling such matters was already recognized.

No local church could exercise authority over another local church? The Corinthians never heard of this notion. They held Clement’s letter in almost as high esteem as they did sacred Scripture. Eusebius tells us that 70 years after Clement sent his letter, the Church at Corinth was still reading aloud from it every Sunday during the liturgy.

Petrine authority was not a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East. No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth. Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they created but could not overcome.

Calling Clement I "the epiphany of the Roman primacy" is beyond absurd.

He's a brief list of a several observations I made after reading the text:
1. All references to Rome are in the plural ("us", "we", etc...).
2. The Church of Corinth asked the Church of Rome to intervene.
3. "Pillars" is used to describe both Peter and Paul, who are treated as equals in the only explicit reference to them.
4. In using a military analogy for the church, Clement refers to Christ as the king and the presbyters (plural) as his generals.
5. In the defending the right of the lawful presbyters of Corinth to govern their Church, Clement describes the appointment of bishops by the apostles, but makes no mention of any one bishop being entrusted with the care of the entire Church.
6. He encourages the dissenting members of the Church of Corinth to submit to a conciliar decision made by the presbyters of Church of Corinth itself and not Rome.

Dealing with some of the points you brought up directly, the reference to the Holy Sprit speaking through St. Clement is as follows:
Quote
For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter

Clement refers to "the things written by us", and makes no reference to his personal authority. In my opinion, the content of Clement I was dictated by a council of the presbyters of the Church of Rome, and thus the reference to the Holy Spirit is meant to show that the decision was unanimous and is a reference to the Apostolic Council described in Acts 15.

There's no evidence the Church of Corinth wrote to St. John, but there's also no evidence they didn't or at least didn't try to but were unable to because of either the persecutions referenced at the beginning of Clement I or St. John's exile on Patmos. Suggesting the Church of Corinth wrote to the Bishop of Rome over St. John assumes the evidence we have is all there is.

St. Clement's letter was held in high regard by the Church of Corinth because of his personal connection with the city. St. Clement was a co-laborer with St. Paul and helped the latter found the Church of Corinth.

"lifeline to truth" *cough cough* Vigilus and Honorius *cough cough*



« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 03:08:45 AM by Sam G »
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2016, 08:08:38 AM »
The second person singular might be a "royal we" (if it is, then it's most likely a feature of the translation and not the original Greek).



Oh boy, here comes Vigilus/Honorius rabbit hole #6587...
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #44 on: January 05, 2016, 11:08:49 AM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?
God bless!