/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Brother Nathanael for Orthodox Pope when?

We had a Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the West, titled Pope and recognized as the main successor of Peter, for about 1000 years. So of course there can be an Orthodox Pope of Rome.

If you're asking if we can decide today that some bishop will be the Pope: no, not really. The Church of Rome still exists, but it's in schism if not in heresy right now. While it's technically possible to decide that the 2-3 Orthodox people in Italy are now their own autocephalous Church and that one of them is the Patriarch of Rome, this Church of Rome would have no direct continuity with the Church of Rome that was established by Peter and Paul and was present for the 1st millenium - as far as we know, Orthodoxy simply ceased to exist there.

If you're asking what the Pope's job might look like if we were to reunite - see Met. Kallistos Ware's stuff about it, as well as what the Catholic-Orthodox Joint Comissions have deducted so far.

Also, friendly reminder to all newbies

>>558555

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf

>>558570

>Post just above this one is the one noting Pope Francis just redacted the schism and considers the Orthodox church non-heretical

>Trad caths will ignore this but claim papal supremacy over everything else

Meme poster?

Before the schism the patriarch of Rome was the pope to all christians, but he wasn't at first supposed to have any more actual power than the other patriarchs. He was considered the "first among equals", which means he had no actual power over the other patriarchs, but his opinion was supposed to be held in very high regard.

Then the patriarch of Rome wanted actual power and authority over other patriarchs. They declared it in the church law and because of this and some other matters of faith that the eastern patriarchs and the roman patriarch disagreed on, the eastern guys seceded from the One True Church and became the Orthodox.

So I think that the Orthodox would never have a pope, because the position of the pope being redefined was one of the major causes of them seceding. I think (and hope) they can still be saved if they remain in their Church, but it would be best if we reunited. And by reunited I don't mean the Orthodox totally submitting to the Pope and accepting all dogmas and etc that have been established in Catholicism, but rather that both sides should make some changes that would make them more alike and eventually lead to reuniting. Of course great care should be taken to not corrupt the message of God while doing this, but some things can be changed because just because a Pope said it, it doesn't make it the undisputable truth of God. I don't really know what the Orthodox still disagree with so I can't give my indepth opinion

>>558570

>Imagine being this proud and deluded, lol.

Are you seriously surprised that we Orthodox think Catholics are wrong? Really?

As for the second quotation: what I am saying here is that, if we decided overnight to have an Orthodox Church of Rome, it would have no continuity with the historical Church of Rome. I am taking YOUR side here if anything. But I guess fighting is more in your blood than seeking reconciliation, eh?

>Ephesus

The legate of the Pope has nice things to say about the Pope. Strange.

>Origen

First, don't call him a saint, you're literally anathematizing yourself from your own communion. Second, I see no relevance here.

>Clement of Alexandria

I see no relevance either. Do you think that we do not agree that Peter received the Keys of Heaven?

>Jerome

Again I see no relevance. My friend, do you sincerely think that we do not think Peter is the prince of the apostles? No, rather, we want proof that the Pope is the successor of Peter more than the Patriarch of Antioch, or indeed more than any other bishop, is.

Now, please answer to these:

Cyprian of Carthage:

<Treatise on the Unity of the Church:

>The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.

<Epistle 26:

>Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.

<Epistle 39:

>There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord.

<Note: this is sometimes phrased as "the chair is one" – the Latin reads:

>Deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super petrum Domini voce fundata

<That is:

>God is one and Christ is one and the Church is one and the chair is one, founded upon the rock by the voice of the Lord.

cont

>>558585

<Epistle 74:

>But what is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church which was once based by Christ upon the rock, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to Peter alone, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again, in the Gospel, when Christ breathed on the apostles alone, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins you retain they are retained. Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination.

John Chrysostom:

<Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2

>He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart… Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer…’We are able to drink the chalice.’

<Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1

>For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now.

Augustine of Hippo:

<On the Saints, Sermon 295.1-3

>Before his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all.

>I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit;’ and straightway, ‘Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained’ (Jn 20:22-23). This refers to the keys, about which it is said, ‘whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ (Mt 16:19). But that was said to Peter. To show you that Peter at that time stood for the universal Church, listen to what is said to him, what is said to all the faithful, the saints: ‘If your brother sins against you, correct him between you and himself alone.’

>>558570

And since you bring them up:

Origen:

<Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11

>But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My Church?” Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?

Jerome:

<Commentary on Matthew 7.25

>The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built…For the Church was founded upon a rock…upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock (Mt. 16.18).

>>558588

Well that's just what I heard someone here say and what I read somewhere on the internet, I don't really know how it was, I haven't done my research here yet and I just wanted to give some context to answer OP's question.

Luckily for ortholarps, their theology is autocephalous and changes drastically depending on who you ask and what disposition they are currently in.

The ortholarp does not believe in anything other than rejecting communion with Rome.

To answer ops question the Orthodox do indeed have a Pope and he is the bishop of Rome

>>558617

O Eternal God, Who has redeemed the race of men from the captivity of the devil, deliver Thy servant/handmaid from all the workings of unclean spirits. Command the evil and impure spirits and demons to depart from the soul and body of your servant/handmaid and not to remain nor hide in him/her. Let them be banished from this the creation of Thy hands in Thine own holy name and that of Thine only begotten Son and of Thy life-creating Spirit, so that, after being cleansed from all demonic influence, he/she may live godly, justly and righteously and may be counted worthy to receive the Holy Mysteries of Thine only-begotten Son and our God with Whom Thou art blessed and glorified together with the all holy and good and life-creating Spirit now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.'

>>558570

a recent convert perhaps?

>>558570

LMAO he calls Origen a Saint so his argument looks more valid, typical dishonest Catholic apologetics

>>558710

If Nestorius can be a saint Origen certainly should be