Why do you reject the pope?

[prodromos]

'cause he has a funny hair-cut.

and no beard.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I don't think he is a heretic anymore than my lutheran mom is a heretic. There is an important distiction there. He didn't invent the heresy. He inherited it. I just think we need to be careful about not throwing that word around too much. It is very loaded and carries connotations that you may have not wished to commuicate.

 

[Protoevangel]

I don't think he is a heretic anymore than my lutheran mom is a heretic. There is an important distiction there. He didn't invent the heresy. He inherited it. I just think we need to be careful about not throwing that word around too much. It is very loaded and carries connotations that you may have not wished to commuicate.

Besides, the technical term is furry parasite.

 

[Barky]

and no beard.

DING DING DING

 

[Michael G]

Besides, the technical term is furry parasite.

Maybe I should have copyrighted that term?! I could be ueber rich by now!

 

[DarkNLovely]

Nutshell:

Bishop of Rome (aka Patriarch of the West) had a position of honor among the other patriarchs. Whenever they met, Rome would be at the head of the table. Nothing more, nothing less.
But, somewhere along the line a pope got a bit pig-headed and decided that he has authority over all the other patriarchs, bishops, laymen and peons.
The East said "You're wrong".
One thing lead to another. An excommunication here, and excommunication there, a Crusade gone wrong and thus we end up with....

-Eastern Orthodox remain as we have since 33AD-ish.
-Rome keeps 'developing' and 'developing'.




If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Why was the Roman bishop given a place of honor over the others?

 

[Mikeb85]

Why was the Roman bishop given a place of honor over the others?

Because in the days of the early church, Rome was quite influential as a city (being the head of the empire and all), and many early popes were Saints and very Orthodox...

As the capital of the empire was moved to Constantinople and that city increased in stature, it was eventually elevated to status of 'New Rome'. Later on, Rome began to harbor delusions of worldly power and supremacy over the other churches (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine), and eventually fell away, eventually falling into schism...

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Why was the Roman bishop given a place of honor over the others?

A couple reasons, first when we go to scripture we read the following:

Matthew 16:17-19 (New King James Version)

"Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (emphasis added)

So we see from scripture that Christ made Peter "the leader of the pack" so to speak. Peter was first among equals, but he still had a bit of a leadership position. The Church honors and recognizes this.

Initially, Peter was Bishop in Antioch. Then he went to Rome. Since Rome was the capitol of the empire and such, and Peter was Bishop in Rome, the Church gave the seat of Rome primacy but not supremacy. The Church gave Rome honor; not authority. It wasn't until much later that Rome contested primacy verses supremacy.

 

[Michael G]

A couple reasons, first when we go to scripture we read the following:

Matthew 16:17-19 (New King James Version)

"Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (emphasis added)

So we see from scripture that Christ made Peter "the leader of the pack" so to speak. Peter was first among equals, but he still had a bit of a leadership position. The Church honors and recognizes this.

Initially, Peter was Bishop in Antioch. Then he went to Rome. Since Rome was the capitol of the empire and such, and Peter was Bishop in Rome, the Church gave the seat of Rome primacy but not supremacy. The Church gave Rome honor; not authority. It wasn't until much later that Rome contested primacy verses supremacy.

1870 was the year Rome declared Papal Infallibility. Imagine that, it took the popes 1800+ years to figure out they were infallible!

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Because in the days of the early church, Rome was quite influential as a city (being the head of the empire and all), and many early popes were Saints and very Orthodox...

As the capital of the empire was moved to Constantinople and that city increased in stature, it was eventually elevated to status of 'New Rome'. Later on, Rome began to harbor delusions of worldly power and supremacy over the other churches (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine), and eventually fell away, eventually falling into schism...

Not to mention that it was also where Sts Peter and Paul were martyred who were the greatest of Apostles, St Paul writing the greatest part of the Scriptures and St Peter being the foremost.

Also, it's importnat to note that Rome was indeed the Rock (not by nature or Divine Eternal providence as becomes painfully evident in later centuries) which the ret of the Church often looked to for guidance in times of turmoil and heresy. Rome indeed had earned that title through example.

 

[Michael G]

Not to mention that it was also where Sts Peter and Paul were martyred who were the greatest of Apostles, St Paul writing the greatest part of the Scriptures and St Peter being the foremost.

Also, it's importnat to note that Rome was indeed the Rock (not by nature or Divine Eternal providence as becomes painfully evident in later centuries) which the ret of the Church often looked to for guidance in times of turmoil and heresy. Rome indeed had earned that title through example.

And that is why when the Pope attempted to define the Canon of Scripture in the 380s the Church did not accept his decree as binding but waited until the local councils of Hippo and Carthage to ratify the Canon of Scripture? That incident in the life of the early Church clearly shows the rest of the Church did not look to Rome for guidance in one of the most important of questions of the time. Rome gets nothing more than honor, and neither does Constantinople.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

And that is why when the Pope attempted to define the Canon of Scripture in the 380s the Church did not accept his decree as binding but waited until the local councils of Hippo and Carthage to ratify the Canon of Scripture? That incident in the life of the early Church clearly shows the rest of the Church did not look to Rome for guidance in one of the most important of questions of the time. Rome gets nothing more than honor, and neither does Constantinople.

The struggle with arianism and iconoclasm comes to mind first. Remember that Toledo was not accepted (and in fact flatly denied) by Rome as a response to the arian controversy. The problem came later.

I never said Rome was perfect or supreme or that She had the last word. All of them were Patriarchates and none were Papacies as understood today.

It's just that if you look at it overall and all of the statements made by saints both east and west in the Early Church, Rome does stick out a bit as a kind bullwark to heresy.

We have to stop thinking that it is a problem that Rome held a place of honor that came for real reasons beyond just the fact that they happened to be in a city where merchants liked to hang out. The Church is above worldly treasures and I find it insulting that we would assume the MAIN reasons we dubbed Rome the 1st patriarch among patriarchs was just because the city held worldly importance like NY of today. There were reasons of faith that I believe held greater importance. Why in the world would we HONOR Rome with a title of first among equals becuase they HAPPENED to be in an important city? Doesn't that seem like a shallow and empty title, lacking any kind of honor at all?

Rome was often beacon to the Church. She is no longer adn I am not convinced that that title is earned by anyone today. I don't know.

Xpy

 

[Michael G]

It's just that if you look at it overall and all of the statements made by saints both east and west in the Early Church, Rome does stick out a bit as a kind bullwark to heresy.

A bullwork against heresey until faced with the threat of force and possible death by the armies of Charlemagne to accept the Filioque as true doctrine and not reject it as the Popes had done for 300 years before. When faced with the choice of martyrdom or apostasy the Pope chose apostasy.

1 Tim 3:15 makes it chear who the real bullwork against heresy is. The Church as a whole is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not one single espiscopacy. St. Ignatius of Antioch also makes that very clear in his early letters to the Church.

if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

A bullwork against heresey until faced with the threat of force and possible death by the armies of Charlemagne to accept the Filioque as true doctrine and not reject it as the Popes had done for 300 years before. When faced with the choice of martyrdom or apostasy the Pope chose apostasy.

1 Tim 3:15 makes it chear who the real bullwork against heresy is. The Church as a whole is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not one single espiscopacy. St. Ignatius of Antioch also makes that very clear in his early letters to the Church.

Mike, obviously I am not saying that they were THE bullwark against all heresy. BUt they were more than other Patriarchs were in the EARLY church. You rightly pointed out that Rome fell. Obviously I agree with that.

As much as you want to paint me as a papist you have nothing to support this, only that I plainly recognize unique strengths Rome held in the EARLY CHURCH and I don't think that has ANYTHING to do with supporting the modern Roman doctrines of INfallibility or Universal Jurisdiction.

I don't see what I am saying as a threat to Orthodox perspectinve on Rome in any way. It seems you do and you are not alone and cite this as evidence that Rome's attempt to cloud the real issues and use red herrings as their argument that Rome always held UJ and PI has succeeded and has made even Orthodo feel that they need to explain away what is plainly evident in history: Rome was unique both for Apostolic reasons (peter and Paul) and truly held (adn EARNED) her place of great honor in the EARLY Church.

Xpy

 

[Mikeb85]

Mike, obviously I am not saying that they were THE bullwark against all heresy. BUt they were more than other Patriarchs were in the EARLY church. You rightly pointed out that Rome fell. Obviously I agree with that.

It's true that Rome had a long succession of Orthodox Popes. Then again, other great defenders of the faith came from other churches, Saints Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria for example...

I don't see what I am saying as a threat to Orthodox perspectinve on Rome in any way. It seems you do and you are not alone and cite this as evidence that Rome's attempt to cloud the real issues and use red herrings as their argument that Rome always held UJ and PI has succeeded and has made even Orthodo feel that they need to explain away what is plainly evident in history: Rome was unique both for Apostolic reasons (peter and Paul) and truly held (adn EARNED) her place of great honor in the EARLY Church.

Unfortunately this is not entirely historically accurate.

First of all, the church of Antioch also traces succession back to Sts. Peter and Paul. Rome is not unique in this aspect.

Second, while Rome did have a prominent place in the early church, many historians often overstate Rome's power. They were given primacy simply because they were the original seat of the empire, and were Orthodox for many years. As Constantinople rose to become the seat of the empire, it was elevated to equal importance with Rome. Again, Rome is not unique here.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

It's true that Rome had a long succession of Orthodox Popes. Then again, other great defenders of the faith came from other churches, Saints Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria for example...

so we concur here. I never said there weren't other great patriarchs and I wouldn't even suggest that any of the patriachs were the most "Orthodox" of the saints.



Unfortunately this is not entirely historically accurate.

First of all, the church of Antioch also traces succession back to Sts. Peter and Paul. Rome is not unique in this aspect. [/quote]
To the martyrdom of Sts Peter and Paul? Yes, it is very unique in this respect. that mattered a GREAT deal where one was martyred.

Second, while Rome did have a prominent place in the early church, many historians often overstate Rome's power. They were given primacy simply because they were the original seat of the empire, and were Orthodox for many years. As Constantinople rose to become the seat of the empire, it was elevated to equal importance with Rome. Again, Rome is not unique here.

out of necessity because Rome was not easily reached due to warring. But I dont believe Rome ever lost her place as first among equals. My point is that I beleive the Church goes beyond politics and does not just give special honor to a bishop because of mere politics. But that's what we necessarily suggest when we say that it was the NYC of that day. it's more than that.

But, I realize that it is taboo here to say that first among equals actual meant something real in the Early Church because we have been brainwashed by Rome into thinking that that somehow translates into Supremacy. So, we feel forced to ignore what was so plainly obvious about Rome's (deserved) influence in the Early Church. Unfortunately, if Orthodox don't toe the line on this point nowdays they are quickly accused by many of being closet papists.

Xpy

 

[JohnDeereFan]

sorry. wrong thread

 

[Mikeb85]

out of necessity because Rome was not easily reached due to warring. But I dont believe Rome ever lost her place as first among equals. My point is that I beleive the Church goes beyond politics and does not just give special honor to a bishop because of mere politics. But that's what we necessarily suggest when we say that it was the NYC of that day. it's more than that.

Here's the text of the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon:

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖ&#945 to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

There it is, strait from the canons of the Fourth Ecumenical council. Rome was given her privileges because she was the Imperial city, and Constantinople was given equal privileges.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

Interestingly enough, Rome protested the 28th Canon at first, but the church as a whole accepted it anyway...

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Well, that is a good point.

 

[DarkNLovely]

A couple reasons, first when we go to scripture we read the following:

Matthew 16:17-19 (New King James Version)

"Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (emphasis added)

So we see from scripture that Christ made Peter "the leader of the pack" so to speak. Peter was first among equals, but he still had a bit of a leadership position. The Church honors and recognizes this.

Initially, Peter was Bishop in Antioch. Then he went to Rome. Since Rome was the capitol of the empire and such, and Peter was Bishop in Rome, the Church gave the seat of Rome primacy but not supremacy. The Church gave Rome honor; not authority. It wasn't until much later that Rome contested primacy verses supremacy.

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?