Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

Rebekah30 · May 16, 2009

Thekla said:
Thats ok - if "jumping in" is verboten, I messed up first

I'm not familiar with the use of the plural in the editorial manner from this era and the NT - except in phrases like, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us". Then, I have a spotty memory It would be interesting to see the original language and its grammar.

It would be very interesting, but I am having enough trouble remembering what the english translation had said.

CaliforniaJosiah · May 16, 2009

Rebekah30 said:
Hi CJ. Do you have a bee in your bonnet? I for one would like to discuss this is a civil manner.

No bees OR bonnet, lol....

Have you been following my discussion with NewMan99? He's WAY out of my league (so to speak) being a very, very accomplished and respected apologist in the RCC - but I HOPE our discussion is "civil" even if pointed and direct (nice when we can get past Mr. Rogerism and PC'ism but do so with mutual respect and without questioning the faith of the other - as I know Bob doesn't and as I'm sure he knows I don't). NewMan99's position is that the Archbishop is "wrong" on this, and he promised to present evidence to prove such.

But sure, jump right in! Most of the posts in this thread are from neither of us - it's meant to be open. And lest it be forgotten, it's actually an ORTHODOX position we are discussing, not the Protestant one or mine (I purposely started another thread to discuss MY position rather than the Archbishops - but that thread quickly died).

Now, FROM THE ORTHODOX perspective (and I'm at a huge disadvantage here because my training is Catholic, not Orthodox), I THINK they would argue that Clement is speaking as a member of the community of bishops - not as a personal, infallible, powerful, lord of all but as one part of the voice of the bishopes (although perhaps even this early, with some special honor). They'd see the seeds anyway to authority resting in the college of bishops (not sure how they would word that). IMHO (and again, my degree is in physics, not very early Christian history), the EO has a stronger position here than the RC does (as, IMHO, is usually the case where the EO and RC disagree).

What NewMan99 seems to have admitted is that Clement doesn't evidence the RCC position; indeed, it seems to support that the distinctive concept of the RCC PAPACY is evolutionary within that denomination and not in place in 90 AD - a position the Orthodox Archbishop seems to be supporting.

Thank you to ALL posting here!

Pax

- Josiah

.

Thekla · May 16, 2009

LittleLambofJesus said:
Always wondered what a bee bonnet looked like

"All the nations compassed me round about,
and by the name of the Lord I warded them off.
Surrounding me they compassed me,
and by the name of the Lord I warded them off.
They compassed me about like unto bees around a honeycomb,
and they burst into flame like a fire among the thorns,
and by the name of the Lord I warded them off." Psalm 117
(#118, Masoretic)

LittleLambofJesus · May 16, 2009

Thekla said:
"All the nations compassed me round about,
and by the name of the Lord I warded them off.
Surrounding me they compassed me,
and by the name of the Lord I warded them off.
They compassed me about like unto bees around a honeycomb,
and they burst into flame like a fire among the thorns,
and by the name of the Lord I warded them off." Psalm 117
(#118, Masoretic)

That bee bonnet almost resembles the RC pope's tiara

Thought I would use a smaller pic..........

Rebekah30 · May 16, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
No bees OR bonnet, lol....

That is good to know.

Have you been following my discussion with NewMan99?

Not all of it

He's WAY out of my league (so to speak) being a very, very accomplished and respected apologist in the RCC -

It does seem that way

but I HOPE our discussion is "civil" even if pointed and direct (nice when we can get past Mr. Rogerism and PC'ism but do so with mutual respect and without questioning the faith of the other - as I know Bob doesn't and as I'm sure he knows I don't).

I only didn't like the post I commented on. I am a bit touchy while reading, just ask OrthodoxyUSA From the posts I read you both have been polite.

NewMan99's position is that the Archbishop is "wrong" on this, and he promised to present evidence to prove such

But sure, jump right in! Most of the posts in this thread are from neither of us - it's meant to be open. And lest it be forgotten, it's actually an ORTHODOX position we are discussing, not the Protestant one or mine (I purposely started another thread to discuss MY position rather than the Archbishops - but that thread quickly died).

Now, FROM THE ORTHODOX perspective (and I'm at a huge disadvantage here because my training is Catholic, not Orthodox), I THINK they would pick up on this "we" and "us" and note that Clement is speaking as a member of the community of bishops - not as lord of all but as a member of such (although perhaps even this early, with some special honor). They'd see the seeds anyway to authority resting in the college of bishops (not sure how they would word that). IMHO (and again, my degree is in physics, not very early Christian history), the EO has a MUCH stronger position here than the RC does. And while it's been a couple of years since I've read First and Second Clement, it would not surprise me if at least some very elementary "seeds" of that thought might be found in 90 AD. I don't know that it is, but it wouldn't surprise me. What NewMan99 seems to have admitted is that it doesn't evidence the RCC position; indeed, it seems to support that the distinctive concept of the RCC PAPACY is evolutionary within that denomination - a position the Orthodox Archbishop seems to be supporting. In other words, it would not shock me IF Clement is IMPLYING something akin to the Orthodox position of a community of equal bishops, but I don't see it as supporting what NewMan99 himself as given as the meaning of the Catholic Papacy; NewMan99 even seems to agree with such.

.

Thanks for your comments in the rest of your post cj.

You have a degree in physics, pretty cool, wish I did.

NewMan99 · May 16, 2009

What NewMan99 seems to have admitted is that Clement doesn't evidence the RCC position; indeed, it seems to support that the distinctive concept of the RCC PAPACY is evolutionary within that denomination and not in place in 90 AD - a position the Orthodox Archbishop seems to be supporting.

SIGH!!!

I have admitted no such thing!

It isn't "evolutionary" - and we aren't a denomination! Are you through insulting us yet, CJ? I am getting rather tired and, frankly, disgusted by it.

LittleLambofJesus · May 16, 2009

NewMan99 said:
SIGH!!!

I have admitted no such thing!

It isn't "evolutionary" - and we aren't a denomination! Are you through insulting us yet, CJ? I am getting rather tired and, frankly, disgusted by it.

Only according to CF you are

http://www.christianforums.com/t7230052/
Apparently --Catholics are now a "Denomination"

NewMan99 · May 16, 2009

Thekla said:
does the letter say who the "us" is, or is it an "editorial" us ?

Hi Thekla

Great question...and it also is another indication that the Bishop of Rome considered himself (at a very early time - in the Apostlic era) to speak on behalf of the entire Church. For if he did not speak on behalf of the Church itself, then why use the plural? Clearly he was expressing himself in a way that told his audience, "I am not speaking for myself...I am speaking for "us").

NewMan99 · May 16, 2009

LittleLambofJesus said:
Only according to CF you are

http://www.christianforums.com/t7230052/
Apparently --Catholics are now a "Denomination"

No longer. There was a short period of time when CF designated us as a denomination. Happily they came to their senses and realized that a considerable number of their members (including the Orthodox) did not quite appreciate being called something we consider to be seriously in error. CF changed it to Congregations or Communities or some other sort of benign category.

Thekla · May 16, 2009

NewMan99 said:
Hi Thekla

Great question...and it also is another indication that the Bishop of Rome considered himself (at a very early time - in the Apostlic era) to speak on behalf of the entire Church. For if he did not speak on behalf of the Church itself, then why use the plural? Clearly he was expressing himself in a way that told his audience, "I am not speaking for myself...I am speaking for "us").

But, in Acts, "us" was the apostles and the elders - it was a consensus. The "mind" is the "mind of Christ". So in this, was Clement noting an agreement with apostolic practice/teaching (the us) as standing against the events in Corinth, or was he assuming the "we" as himself ?

(other uses: "let US be obedient" (58:1),...."grant US to hope on thy name" (59:3).)

LittleLambofJesus · May 16, 2009

Thekla said:
But, in Acts, "us" was the apostles and the elders - it was a consensus. The "mind" is the "mind of Christ". So in this, was Clement noting an agreement with apostolic practice/teaching (the us) as standing against the events in Corinth, or was he assuming the "we" as himself ?

(other uses: "let US be obedient" (58:1),...."grant US to hope on thy name" (59:3).)

That was an interesting point Thekla.
Paul also used the "US" in 1 Corin 4:6 of which I made a thread on

1 Corinthians 4:6 These-things yet brethren! I after-figure into myself and Apollos thru/because-of ye. That in us ye may be learning the no above/over that which hath been Written/gegraptai <1125> (5769), *to think* that no one over the one ye may be being puffed up against the other/different.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7367166/#post51676697
1 Corin 4:6 No above what is written

CaliforniaJosiah · May 16, 2009

NewMan99 said:
SIGH!!! I have admitted no such thing! It isn't "evolutionary"

Trento and you seemed to support that Protestant who said that here, in 90 AD, we have the FIRST STEP TOWARD the Papacy. "Steps" (to me) imply that there were steps. And "first" implies to me that it was first. And "toward" implies to ME toward that.

NewMan99 said:
and we aren't a denomination! Are you through insulting us yet, CJ? I am getting rather tired and, frankly, disgusted by it.

Friend, I NEVER said that Catholics are a denomination, I said The Catholic Church is. Just as Lutherans are not a denomination, but The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is. I've given you the definitions of how I (and everyone else known to me) use the term. Why do you rehash all that NOW?

You'd never supply what alternative to the common theological term you'd permit, so lately I've typically been posting, "The Catholic _________________ (fill in whatever term for denomination is acceptable to you)" I have no idea what term you fill in, you've never said. BUT, as I noted quite extensively to you, I do NOT use the term in a negative, insulting or disgusting manner - so YOU are IMPUTING offense where I have extensively and clearly informed you NONE is intended and where you KNOW none is intended, implied, meant or conveyed. You are MAKING a problem where you KNOW none exists. Unfortunate, IMHO.

I gave you the definition I use. I told you of that least one respected Catholic around here agrees that the RCC is a denomination (and you confirmed that). Why you are offended by association, cooperation and accountability is unclear to me, you never would answer my questions about that; nor do I know why you reject denominational congregations in favor of the only possible alternative, non-denom congregations, but I must (and I do) leave all that unanswered because you never replied. So, my friend, I've told you - clearly and extensively - I use the term in the common theological manner and mean NO offense; indeed, I told you that I mean EXACTLY the opposite since, as I told you and as you know, I support and embrace community and thus, as you know, I support and embrace and celebrate congregations and their denominations.

So, please, my brother, please don't impute offense where you know it is not intended or implied.

Can we get back to our discussion?

.

NewMan99 · May 16, 2009

Frankly CJ, between your last post and post #450 I have decided that trying to communicate with you in a civil and edifying manner is utterly impossible. I will post the rest of my evidence as I promised, but I have no desire to continue with a dialog with you that goes in circles.

CaliforniaJosiah · May 16, 2009

.

Originally Posted by NewMan99

Originally Posted by Josiah

Friend, originally, you seemed to identify the Papacy as

Originally Posted by NewMan99

Originally Posted by Josiah

1. Patrine.
2. Uniquely having the "keys"
3. INFALLIBLE
4. ALL Christians are "bound" to him alone as the Vicar of Christ.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Again you misstate my position. I did NOT say that all Christians are "bound to him" in the sense you imply. CATHOLICS in COMMUNION with the Holy See are bound to him. Not you.

Frustrating, lol! Now I need to go back and quote where you've made each of these points - as well as having POWER over all. You defined the papacy has infallible, having power/lordship over "the whole universal church" etc.

Originally Posted by NewMan99

There are MANY aspects of the papacy. Is it Petrine? Yes. It is the sole "Key-bearer"? Yes. Is it infallible? Yes - but ONLY under certain conditions within a narrow context (a context which you still do not grasp on a fundamental level)...not everything the Pope says is infallible. Are Catholics in communion with the Holy See bound to him? Yes. Is the Pope the "vicar of Christ"? Yes. Did Jesus commission Peter to be the supreme pastor of the Church? Yes. Do Peter's successors succeed to Peter's special ministry? Yes. Is this special ministry - commissioned by Christ - given to Peter and his successors to keep the Church unified and orthodox? Yes.

... and so I was wrong to say that YOU defined the papacy as Petrine, the holding the "keys" in some unique manner, as being infallible, as being SUPREME lord and power over all Christians, the Vicar of Christ? Friend, you can't post that that's wrong and then that that's right.

The papacy is all these things and more.

Great.

Then reveal that Jesus founded that in 30 AD and that all Christians understood and accepted that by then, otherwise, we're not talking about the Papacy. Now, if you want to change your point and agree with ME that the papacy is a concept that begun well after the life/death/resurrection of Christ and has slowly evolved within The specific, singular Catholic __________ (insert whatever word you prefer to denomination) into what we know today - and perhaps the FIRST STEP TOWARD such happened in 90 AD (60 years too late for Jesus to have had a hand in such), then you have switched positions and are essentially in agreement with the Protestants.

Originally Posted by NewMan99

ALL Catholic Churches DO believe that the Bishop of Rome = infallible (under certain and narrow conditions) Vicar of Christ who is the supreme pastor of the universal Church.

Of course! Who EVER suggested otherwise?

We all know that the RCC claims all this and that it requires all to accept all of it "with docility" - and faithful Catholics do. Okay. As has been noted repeatedly in this thread, this isn't about what Catholics or Orthodox or Mormons or Pentecostals BELIEVE, it's about whether the claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone in this regard is TRUE. YOUR promise is that you'd substantiate it as TRUE, not that you'd point out that the RCC claims it, demands docilic acceptance of it, and all faithful Catholics do so. We already know that.

And, friend, YOU are the one who stressed that "the whole universal church" is "bound" (interesting word) to HIM. Not just those in his denomination, but throughout the "whole universal church." That's YOUR emphasis from day one in our discussion. Friend, I am CERTAIN that your apologetic is NOT: "Everyone who accepts him as The Pope accepts him as The Pope so therefore he is the Pope of those who accept him as the Pope." I'm certain that's not the "evidence" you have been promising was forthcoming....

Originally Posted by NewMan99

Originally Posted by Josiah

I agree with you, the snippet that our Catholic brother offered does NOT say that there was no Pope prior to Clement, but he also doesn't say that there was.

Originally Posted by NewMan99

Right. So what? Schaff provided a list of Bishops of Rome and included Clement on that list (as the 4th Bishop and 3rd successor of Peter). Then, in a different quote, Schaff correctly noted that in 90 AD the Bishop of Rome (Clement) wrote a letter that is the first evidence we have of a Roman Bishop exercising jurisdictional authority over another church. And it is.

Right. And more - he says that here, in 90 AD (60 years too late for Jesus' involvement), we have "THE FIRST STEP TOWARD" the papacy. Now, how does that affirm your position that Jesus established the Papacy and that such has always existed (using YOUR extensive notations of the Papacy? Doesn't "first" mean first? And doesn't step mean step? And "toward" mean heading toward such? And he didn't call Clement any kind of Pope of anything at all. Bishop. There are thousands of them in the world.

Originally Posted by NewMan99

The Corinthians ASSUMED that the Bishop of Rome already had this authority and Clement likewise ASSUMED it when he ASSERTED it.

Well, it's impossible to know what they may have ASSUMED in 90 AD. We only know what we know - and that's only that Clement seems to be respected, loved and regarded as wise. Nothin' about his being in Infallible/unaccountable, powerful lord surpreme over all Christians, Vicar of Christ, unique holder of the keys - in fact, NOTHING that relates to the distinctive marks YOU give for being The POPE of the RCC.

Is your whole apologetic that Jesus founded the Papacy of The specific Catholic Church in or before 30 AD based on what you think maybe Clement ASSUMED and what you think maybe some Christians in Corinth ASSUMED in 90 AD (60 years after the Ascension of Jesus) but there's no evidence of such whatsoever? Is THAT the "evidence" you have been promising? Or that "Well, The Catholic Church claims this and requires that we docilicly accept it and we do?" Is THAT the evidence? Is THAT your apologetic?

Originally Posted by NewMan99

Clement wasn't "Pope" (read: held the office of supreme pastor with universal juridictional authority to keep the Church united and orthodox) then WHY did the Corinthians appeal to him, and why did Clement write the letter in the first place, and why did Clement demand that they obey their local bishops? Sure sounds like a Pope to me.

Here's what we're getting: question marks, what if's, possibilities, RCC claims - not evidence.

Once again, what about the innumeral times I've asked my mother for her counsel and took her advise? Does that mean that my mother is the first Pope of the RCC? Or, to follow your 'logic,' ergo my great-greatgrandmother must have been the first Pope of the RCC? I don't follow you...,

Originally Posted by NewMan99

Originally Posted by Josiah

What he says is that all this "dominion," power, lordship seems to be the "first step TOWARD a concept of the Papacy."

Originally Posted by NewMan99

Well, was a step taken or not, CJ? Which is it? If a step was taken - whether it was the first or not is irrelevent. If a step was taken - it is evidence that the office which we today call "the papacy" existed as an authoritative office on a matter pertaining to Church unity. It's an example of a successor of Peter "tending" the sheep of Jesus' flock EXACTLY as Jesus commanded the Key-bearer to do.

1. I've already stated several times that I do NOT see cause to regard this as the "FIRST STEP TAKEN TOWARD" the papacy. I see it as a wise pastor's advise being sought and embraced - and nothing to suggest anything other than that. Christians are still seeking (and taking) the advise of those whom they respect, such does NOT suggest they are thereby The Pope as you have defined such.

2. But let's assume that this Protestant historian is right, and here in 90 AD, we have "THE FIRST STEP TAKEN TOWARD" the papacy. Then your entire argument has collasped - along with the foundational, critical, keystone claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone: and I'm CERTAIN you are not so arguing (why would you be taking the PROTESTANT position and pulling the entire rug out from the RCC? Clearly you aren't!). If in 90 AD the first step TOWARD such occured, then OBVIOUSLY Jesus had nothing to do with it, it didn't always exist, and it's not until 60 years AFTER the glorious resurrection that we even have the FIRST STEP in the direction of the concept. Friend, I don't when that mysterious Protestant suggests the Papacy began - but he surely is indicating it wasn't with Jesus in or before 30 AD and that rather it clearly was an evolutionary ("steps") thing, and we don't even have a step in that direction until 90 AD!!! Now, I might question whether this is a "first step" in that direction (I think we just have a respected, beloved pastor - not THE POPE of the RCC), but it seems to ME that if that is your pov - then you have denounced the Catholic position, embraced the Protestant position - and the only "issue" between you and I is when we can first call this evolution "The Pope" with the distinctives YOU claim for such - but we are agreeing on all the important points: Jesus had nothing to do with this, it didn't always exist, it was an evolutionary ("steps") concept, and limited to one denomination - yours. The only point of disagreement would be can the FIRST STEP TOWARD this be as early as 90 AD? You - yes, me - unlikely. Moot since we both agree Jesus ascended into Heaven 60 years earlier, and we agree it was a slow evolutionary "steps" thing in your denomination. SURELY, you are not going to such lengths only to agree with the Protestants!!!!!! SURELY, this is NOT the apologetic you've promised; of course not!

Originally Posted by NewMan99

1. Was this the "first" historical evidence of a Bishop of Rome asserting universal authority in a manner consistent with what later Bishops of Rome (who eventually came to be called "Pope") did? Everyone agrees "yes" - there is no KNOWN earlier HISTORICAL evidence of a Bishop of Rome making a unilateral and authoritative command over another Church.

1. No, not everyone agrees. I see nothing that suggests this IS a case of The Bishop of the diocese of Rome exercising lordship over all others AS SUCH.

2. If this is true, then your entirely point collasped as unsubstantiated.

Originally Posted by NewMan99

2. Was this the "first" time the Bishop of Rome asserts some form of dominion over another Church? This is what Schaff claims...but we don't really know that. Just because the letter is the oldest example we still have, doesn't mean it wasn't asserted in other cases by Clement's predecessors. So Schaff makes an unfounded conclusion. It may very well be the first example of this exercise of universal jurisdiction - but we don't know either way. But even if it is the first, that doesn't mean that Clement took it upon himself to seize this authority or started to make up out of thin air an office that never existed before.

You AGAIN noting that we don't know is hardly a compelling apologetic, my respected friend and brother in Christ.

You seem to constantly retreat into "but it IS possible." Of course, AGAIN, no one questions that it's POSSIBLE. It's POSSIBLE Joseph Smith found those plates, too - I'm sure you'll agree. What you indicated you'd do is provide the evidence that Jesus founded The Papacy of the RCC, not that you'd support the Protestant position that actually the known evidence is that Jesus had nothing to do with it, and that it was a slow, evolutionary ("steps") thing within The Catholic _____________ (insert whatever word you prefer to denomination).

Again, NO ONE is questioning the angels' words that "all things are possible with God." I beleive that, you believe that, the Mormon believes that - that's not a point of disagreement and not the subject of this thread.

And NO ONE is questioning whether the RCC that makes this claim for itself requires all to docilicly accept it as infallible/unaccountable dogma and that often Catholics do as their denomination requires. No one debates that. That's not the issue here.

YOU gave the distinctives of the Papacy.
Now, what is your evidence that Jesus founded that in or before 30 AD?

Originally Posted by NewMan99

2. Schaff overstates it when he concludes it is "the first step toward." A more accurate way to say it would be that it is the first KNOWN example (based on historical evidence) of "dominion" etc...

1. Then maybe you and Trento should not have been so quick to embrace it and state that he was supporting your position? Actually, he's supporting MY position, it seems.

2. This entire thread is about evidence. You promised you'd provide the evidence. What it seems you have presented actually destroys your point and rather well supports the Protestant perspective.

Originally Posted by NewMan99

And a step toward "that" only begs the question as to the nature of the "that" we are talking about. Toward what?

You've already said toward WHAT.
You have given the distinctives of the Papacy. Not me, YOU.
Now we're waiting for the evidence that such existed since 30 AD (at least).

Originally Posted by NewMan99

What I said - IN CONTEXT - is that Schaff and you and many other non-Catholics conclude too much when you ASSUME that the first known historical evidence of a given matter is to be equated that there were no such previous UNKNOWN examples or that such authority did not pre-exist.

... then your 'evidence' supports the PROTESTANT position, but the evidence you now claim you do NOT have supports your position.
You seem to be insisting, "Okay, all the evidence supports the Protestant position, but if we had any evidence, we think it would support our position."

Again, NO ONE denies the Angel's message that all things are possible with God, that truth is NOT the subject of our discussion.

And YES, it could be that evidence no one has says that the "first step toward" an understanding of Papacy came with Linus and not Clement (as if that would make any difference whatsoever) but then it could be that evidence no one has is that there are purple people on the Earth's Moon, too (no offense, but I want to make a point clear to you). APOLOGETICS is not about having no evidence but claiming and promising to present it; it is NOT an argument purely from evidence that you seem to admit does NOT exist.

There is no evidence either way that Clement's predecessors exercised universal authority - and we should be careful about claiming that Clement's letter is THE FIRST STEP just becuase it is the first KNOWN step. I am NOT claiming that silence "substantiated" anything.

Amazing admission on your part.

Actually, I see absolutely no evidence in the case of Clement, either.

.

NewMan99 · May 16, 2009

Thekla said:
But, in Acts, "us" was the apostles and the elders - it was a consensus. The "mind" is the "mind of Christ". So in this, was Clement noting an agreement with apostolic practice/teaching (the us) as standing against the events in Corinth, or was he assuming the "we" as himself ?

(other uses: "let US be obedient" (58:1),...."grant US to hope on thy name" (59:3).)

I'm not sure. I am inclined to the former, but it could even be both, couldn't it?

LittleLambofJesus · May 16, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
.The following is from an article by a Greek Orthodox Archbishop. The Archbishop is exploring the text about Jesus, the "keys," Peter's Confession and Peter and the concept of "pope." I found it interesting and perhaps worthy of an ecumenical discussion...

(d) In conclusion it should be pointed out that the order of precedence given to the Apostolic Sees was determined exclusively by the political importance of various cities. The Bishop of Rome was recognized as first because Rome was capital of the empire, nothing more. Originally, the Bishop of Constantinople was designated as second by the Second Ecumenical Council. Subsequently, when Constantinople became the capital of the Byzantine Empire and was referred to as New Rome, the Fourth Ecumenical Council proclaimed the Bishop of Constantinople equal in rank with the Bishop of Rome.

The Schism of the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox - Church History

Comments?
Pax!
- Josiah

Thnks for that link CJ. I still have a lot to learn on the Orthodoxy Priesthood and I found this interesting.

Is the Pope of the Orthodox shown below the highest ranking Bishop within Orthodoxy?

I also noticed different labels, such as "his holiness", "his beautitude", "patriarch" ect.
Is this akin to the RCC's royal priesthood concerning a pope, cardinals, bishops and priests? Thanks

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/index.html

His Beatitude
THEODOROS II
Pope and Patriarch
of Alexandria
and All Africa

Rebekah30 · May 16, 2009

LittleLambofJesus said:
Thnks for that link CJ. I still have a lot to learn on the Orthodoxy Priesthood and I found this interesting.

Is the Pope of the Orthodox shown below the highest ranking Bishop within Orthodoxy?

I also noticed different labels, such as "his holiness", "his beautitude", "patriarch" ect.
Is this akin to the RCC's royal priesthood concerning a pope, cardinals, bishops and priests? Thanks

Orthodox Research Institute

His Beatitude
THEODOROS II
Pope and Patriarch
of Alexandria
and All Africa

Eastern Orthodoxs don't have a pope, the Oriental Orthodox do.
I can't help you too much, but the EO do have a Priesthood etc.
I think you best do a little research on it.

edit..wish I could help

Thekla · May 16, 2009

sorry
I couldn't find a summary paragraph to pull from here, but this article (mostly about the priest) expresses the idea of "bishop" - and ordination - in the EO understanding (as an expression of the body).
Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity - Canon Law in the Orthodox Church

the various titles refer to area (size) , and mode of relationship to the other bishops.

(the 'pope' term originated in Africa/Egypt - it is a sort of 'vernacular' for episkopos)

LittleLambofJesus · May 16, 2009

Rebekah30 said:
Eastern Orthodoxs don't have a pope, the Oriental Orthodox do.
I can't help you too much, but the EO do have a Priesthood etc.
I think you best do a little research on it.

edit..wish I could help

I see they are also trying to reconcile. What a blessing that would be to the EO and OO

Orthodox Unity - First Agreed Statement

Pastoral Agreement between the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria Since the Holy Synods of both the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa have already accepted the outcome of the official dialogue on Christology between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the two official agreements: the first on Christology signed in June 1989 in Egypt and the second also on Christology and on the lifting of anathemas and restoration of full communion signed in Geneva 1990, in which it is stated that "In the light of our agreed statement on Christology..., we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of Apostolic tradition". It was agreed to have mutual recognition of the sacrament of Baptism, based on what St Paul wrote, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:5)

Rebekah30 · May 16, 2009

LittleLambofJesus said:
I see they are also trying to reconcile. What a blessing that would be to the EO and OO

Orthodox Unity - First Agreed Statement

Pastoral Agreement between the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria Since the Holy Synods of both the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa have already accepted the outcome of the official dialogue on Christology between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the two official agreements: the first on Christology signed in June 1989 in Egypt and the second also on Christology and on the lifting of anathemas and restoration of full communion signed in Geneva 1990, in which it is stated that "In the light of our agreed statement on Christology..., we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of Apostolic tradition". It was agreed to have mutual recognition of the sacrament of Baptism, based on what St Paul wrote, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:5)

Without even reading that I know that reconcilation is closer than ever before. It may happen soon........not meaning soon as we see time.
I think it just may happen though.

Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Regular Member

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

Thekla

Guest

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

Well-Known Member

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Regular Member

Thekla

Guest

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency