Why do you reject the pope?

Mikeb85 · Jan 26, 2009

DarkNLovely said:
Judging by that scripture alone though,I would be more inclined to agree with the Roman Catholic view. That scripture sounds to me like Jesus would be giving Him supremacy, if I were to look at it from that point of view. But that's just my two cents. Please don't be offended as I don't believe the Roman view either, I was just saying that I could see why they think that. Thanks for your answers.

What is the Orthodox reseponse to the list of the line of unbroken Popes that they have? Do you dispute it?

Fact is, there is no scriptural 'basis' for the Pope of Rome. See my previous response - the 28th canon of the council of Chalcedon says rather plainly that Rome was given primacy for reason of being the Imperial city, and that for the same reason Constantinople was to be elevated.

Any argument related to St. Peter can be applied likewise to the Patriarch of Antioch, as that Patriarch also has succession through St. Peter.

As far as the line of unbroken Popes - every Orthodox Patriarchate has an unbroken line of succession as well (the Patriarch of Antioch through St. Peter, the Pope of Alexandria through St. Mark, Patriarch of Jerusalem through St. James, etc...). In the early church, Rome was simply another Patriarchate, though a highly honoured one.

exquirer · Jan 27, 2009

Mikeb85 said:
Fact is, there is no scriptural 'basis' for the Pope of Rome. See my previous response - the 28th canon of the council of Chalcedon says rather plainly that Rome was given primacy for reason of being the Imperial city, and that for the same reason Constantinople was to be elevated.

Any argument related to St. Peter can be applied likewise to the Patriarch of Antioch, as that Patriarch also has succession through St. Peter.

As far as the line of unbroken Popes - every Orthodox Patriarchate has an unbroken line of succession as well (the Patriarch of Antioch through St. Peter, the Pope of Alexandria through St. Mark, Patriarch of Jerusalem through St. James, etc...). In the early church, Rome was simply another Patriarchate, though a highly honoured one.

Rome was and is first among equals. We are all equal - in Christ there is neither slave or free, male or female - we are all equal in Jesus Christ - temples of the living God - the body of Christ. And some of us have more responsibility than others and are called to higher service.

And like Peter, the Popes make mistakes - and weeps and repents, falls down, gets up, falls down, get up..... just like the rest of us.

Its a pattern we are all in, so why don't we grow up, arise at the passing of the gray head and give honor to whom it is due.

The bread of Christianity is His body, and the blood is forgiveness - and if we don't forgive, we will never be one even as Jesus Christ and the Father are one.....

As for Scripture, read Isaiah 22 with the Fathers.

Reader Antonius · Jan 27, 2009

exquirer said:
Rome was and is first among equals.

This is actually a teaching of the Catholic Church, which IMO is somewhat ironic. The difference is of course that the concept of primer inter pares differs between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches.

prodromos · Jan 27, 2009

exquirer said:
And like Peter, the Popes make mistakes - and weeps and repents, falls down, gets up, falls down, get up..... just like the rest of us.

That's just it. Rome refuses to repent of her errors.

As for Scripture, read Isaiah 22 with the Fathers.

Which Fathers? I don't recall any making a connection between Isaiah 22 and Peter, let alone the Pope.

John

Picklenickels · Jan 27, 2009

PaladinGirl said:
Hi everyone. I was just wondering, why do the Eastern Orthodox reject the pope's authority as pontiff? I have never really understood this. Please explain. Thanks.

The Pope once held the title of "First Among Equals" or "Primus Inter Pares" (Latin), but when the Western Church fell into heresy, He assumed the title of Universal Bishop, Vicar of Christ, Pontifex Maximus, etc. all of which were contrary to Holy Tradition, and the usage of the ancient Church.

The Eastern Church has never recognized his assumed authority, and never will.

Picklenickels · Jan 27, 2009

Correction: The Pope is no longer the "first among equals". That title passed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, after the Schism of 1054AD.

Xpycoctomos · Jan 27, 2009

Maximillian of Antioch said:
Correction: The Pope is no longer the "first among equals". That title passed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, after the Schism of 1054AD.

And it means virtually nothing, practically speaking. So, it makes me wonder, did it ever mean anything at all? Has it always been a completely useless title pretending to show honor that is truly never given or earned?

Xpy

Picklenickels · Jan 27, 2009

In the early Church it did have a meaning. Nowdays, it still gives honor to the EP....

Xpycoctomos · Jan 27, 2009

In what way? Honor means something. How do we especially honor the EP except with the title? Why was the title invented in the first place? What is the practical meaning of this title? Someone once answered this, but I forgot.

Thnaks in advance

Xpycoctomos · Jan 27, 2009

In what way? Honor means something. How do we especially honor the EP except with the title? Why was the title invented in the first place? What is the practical meaning of this title? Someone once answered this, but I forgot.

Thnaks in advance

Picklenickels · Jan 28, 2009

It is simple. Because Rome was the Imperial Capital, The Pope was given the title. He was like the CEO of the Church. He would sign his name to the final decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, sometimes. If there was a dispute, he would act as a mediator. But he NEVER had authority outside of his own jurisdiction, and NEVER had the authority to formulate doctrine.

Picklenickels · Jan 28, 2009

As recently as 1848, the Orthodox Patriarchs tried to convince the Pope of the Truth. Now the "Rottweiler of the Faith" (so-called by RC's), Benedict, is trying to coax the Orthodox faithful into another "reunion". The Roman Catholics need US, because they see their own believers drifting away, etc. That is a slippery slope that Orthodox believers don't need to go down. We have the fullness of the faith, handed down from the Holy Apostles, and we don't need Rome.

Philothei · Jan 28, 2009

Xpycoctomos said:
In what way? Honor means something. How do we especially honor the EP except with the title? Why was the title invented in the first place? What is the practical meaning of this title? Someone once answered this, but I forgot.

Thnaks in advance

It was part of ecclesiastical "euphemia"(praises) kind like it was used for Byzantine Eulogies ... another "title" given to someone to honor them... It had no "theological significance" neither any "dogmatic value" that the west is "raving'" about. Dogma is not based on EVERYTHING the fathers wrote... They wrote letters to each other so what? Like calling the Pope or the Patriarch of New Rome ...."first among equals" was a title that carried so much of theological singificance? No... Cause if it did then we would have the Fathers putting that as an article for voting in the councils and they did not....

Michael G · Jan 28, 2009

Philothei said:
It was part of ecclesiastical "euphemia" kind like it was used for Byzantine Eulogies ... another "title" given to someone to honor them... It had no "theological significance" neither any "dogmatic value" that the west is "raving'" about. Dogma is not based on EVERYTHING the fathers wrote... They wrote letters to each other so what? Like calling the Pope or the Patriarch of New Rome ...."first among equals" was a title that carried so much of theological singificance? No... Cause if it did then we would have the Fathers putting that as an article for voting in the councils and they did not....

Let us remember, one of the earliest Fathers of the Church St. Ignatius of Antioch said "where the Bishop is there is the Universal Church." Note he did not say "where the Bishop of Rome is there is the Universal Church."

Mikeb85 · Jan 28, 2009

Maximillian of Antioch said:
As recently as 1848, the Orthodox Patriarchs tried to convince the Pope of the Truth. Now the "Rottweiler of the Faith" (so-called by RC's), Benedict, is trying to coax the Orthodox faithful into another "reunion". The Roman Catholics need US, because they see their own believers drifting away, etc. That is a slippery slope that Orthodox believers don't need to go down. We have the fullness of the faith, handed down from the Holy Apostles, and we don't need Rome.

Quoted for truth...

Philothei · Jan 28, 2009

Michael the Iconographer said:
Let us remember, one of the earliest Fathers of the Church St. Ignatius of Antioch said "where the Bishop is there is the Universal Church." Note he did not say "where the Bishop of Rome is there is the Universal Church."

that is yet another point St. Ignatios was making about the leadership of the local church versus the universal...Because universal does not mean catholic... Catholic is the Universal church That which allows the leadership of the local church...

Cherry picking the Fathers and ommiting the above statement is primary the work of heresy...

Anatole · Jan 31, 2009

Maximillian of Antioch said:
As recently as 1848, the Orthodox Patriarchs tried to convince the Pope of the Truth. Now the "Rottweiler of the Faith" (so-called by RC's), Benedict, is trying to coax the Orthodox faithful into another "reunion". The Roman Catholics need US, because they see their own believers drifting away, etc. That is a slippery slope that Orthodox believers don't need to go down. We have the fullness of the faith, handed down from the Holy Apostles, and we don't need Rome.

What we actually need is Jesus Christ, and not arrogant rigidity on either side of the equation.

exquirer · Jan 31, 2009

Actually, what stunned me and made me realize I could go RC was the fact that St. Gregory Palamas is accepted as a saint by the RCC!!!! I was amazed by this, but they now agree with St. Gregory and apparently have for sometime. Also, recall when St. John Maximovitch (who always made the sign of the cross passing a Church - including a RC Church) - was considered a Saint by the local Roman Catholics in Paris, and was pointed out as such.

The truth is, the RCC accepts the Saints - I bet, if you pointed out his life and death, they would accept St. Peter the Alleut as well - and he died forgiving his Roman Catholic tormentors - and the Popes have time and again apologized and wept over these horrible transgressions - they are not made of stone either.

Michael G · Jan 31, 2009

exquirer said:
The truth is, the RCC accepts the Saints - I bet, if you pointed out his life and death, they would accept St. Peter the Alleut as well - and he died forgiving his Roman Catholic tormentors - and the Popes have time and again apologized and wept over these horrible transgressions - they are not made of stone either.

If they have indeed appologized for their horrible transgressions, when can we plan to get back the Holy Mandylion of Edessa which was stolen from Orthodoxy during the 4th Crusade and is in the hands of the Vatican?

Picklenickels · Jan 31, 2009

One cannot say that they love Jesus Christ, yet reject his Church. The Orthodox Faith is the faith handed down from the Apostles, and the Patriarch of Rome fell into heresy, and separated himself from that faith. One cannot love Jesus Christ, and reject his Church.

Why do you reject the pope?

Mikeb85

Guest

Junior Member

Lector et Didascalus

Senior Veteran

Defender of The Faith

Defender of The Faith

Well-Known Member

Defender of The Faith

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Defender of The Faith

Defender of The Faith

Love never fails

Abe Frohmann

Mikeb85

Guest

Love never fails

Senior Member

Junior Member

Abe Frohmann

Defender of The Faith

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency