Peter-The Rock

[SaintGeorge]

The pope claims to be able to trace his office back to St. Peter. Does the Orthodox Church have someone in it who can do this too?

[Moros]

The Orthodox Church maintains full apostolic succession. The Roman Church can not claim this.

[Oblio]

The Roman Church can not claim this.


You are of course referring to the Popes (Bishops of Rome) being ordained illicitly (WRT canon law) after the Great Schism.

[The Prokeimenon!]

St Peter also founded the Church in Antioch (http://www.antiochian.org/667). Apostolic succession isn't just a physical descent from the Apostles, but a doctrinal one as well. In order to be a successor to the Apostlesm one must a) have been ordained by a successor of the Apostles and b)believe and teach exactly what the Apostles taught. In both respects, Orthodoxy has maintained Apostolic succession.

Moses

[SaintGeorge]

Thank you for explaining that to me.

[Matthias]

Why can't the Roman Catholic Church claim this as well? I was always taught it could...

[Moros]

Because they think the Church began with the Pope.

[Spence06]

Wait, I am really confused. Your opinon is that the RC does not have apostlic succession?

[Akathist]

I have never read that EO officially believes that RC does not have apostolic succession.

I have heard that there was an excommunication between Constantinople and Rome in 1054 but that they were both recinded later.

I understood that EO is not in full communion with RC because of Papal infallability issues, not issues related to succession.

The book by Kollistos (Timothy) Ware "The Orthodox Church" gives a wonderful history of the split and explains it very well. To fully understand this issue I suggest that you read this book because any explaination we can give here would be incomplete as it took several chapters in the book to explain it (and even then I am sure there could be more research done on the topic.)

Since I tend to put things in "readers digest" form, I will miss details that would be important for you to understand. However, here is a brief and most likely insufficient attempt:

At first the Church was run by the Apostles and Bishops, etc. There would be "Councils" to discuss the teaching of the church and interpretation of things and basically to make important decisions. (There were seven councils the last one was in the late 700's.) The councils involed a group decision process. Rome was considered in these councils as "first amoung equals". This meant that Rome did not make the decisions but basically was kind of like the "Chairman of the Board." It was believed that when the group as a whole was making decision, the Holy Spirit directed them (as a group) to the correct decision. It was also thought that not one member of the council alone was to direct the outcome of these decisions.

Then the issue of the fallilique came up ("The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" verses "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son") Rome wanted the creed to be changed. The rest of the council did not. This is at least part of the cause of the split. As a result of this disagreement, Rome decided to declair the Pope to be "infallable" and the sole decision maker. The rest of the Church disagreed with this position. Therefore, we have Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

(Remember, I warned you this was a very brief answer to a much more complex issue. But I hope that you can see that the "rest of the Church" after this split is definately in Apostolic succession, and that the Pope is as well.)

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

I have never read that EO officially believes that RC does not have apostolic succession.

I have heard that there was an excommunication between Constantinople and Rome in 1054 but that they were both recinded later.

I understood that EO is not in full communion with RC because of Papal infallability issues, not issues related to succession.

The book by Kollistos (Timothy) Ware "The Orthodox Church" gives a wonderful history of the split and explains it very well. To fully understand this issue I suggest that you read this book because any explaination we can give here would be incomplete as it took several chapters in the book to explain it (and even then I am sure there could be more research done on the topic.)

Since I tend to put things in "readers digest" form, I will miss details that would be important for you to understand. However, here is a brief and most likely insufficient attempt:

At first the Church was run by the Apostles and Bishops, etc. There would be "Councils" to discuss the teaching of the church and interpretation of things and basically to make important decisions. (There were seven councils the last one was in the late 700's.) The councils involed a group decision process. Rome was considered in these councils as "first amoung equals". This meant that Rome did not make the decisions but basically was kind of like the "Chairman of the Board." It was believed that when the group as a whole was making decision, the Holy Spirit directed them (as a group) to the correct decision. It was also thought that not one member of the council alone was to direct the outcome of these decisions.

Then the issue of the fallilique came up ("The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" verses "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son") Rome wanted the creed to be changed. The rest of the council did not. This is at least part of the cause of the split. As a result of this disagreement, Rome decided to declair the Pope to be "infallable" and the sole decision maker. The rest of the Church disagreed with this position. Therefore, we have Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

(Remember, I warned you this was a very brief answer to a much more complex issue. But I hope that you can see that the "rest of the Church" after this split is definately in Apostolic succession, and that the Pope is as well.)I am not intending to start anything, or bash anyone....but I don't understand how the RCC could claim Apostolic succession when they do not teach what the Apostles taught? The fillioque, papal infallibility, immaculate conception, pergatory, none of these things were taught by the Apostles. They are not differences of opinion, these teachings are called heresy by the Orthodox Church. Apostlic succession has to do with the handing down of the teachings of the Apostles. If these teachings are infused with heresy, how can it be legitimate succession?

[SaintGeorge]

Excellent point. That's why I always say that it was the Roman Catholic Church that broke off from Orthodoxy. In my opinion, the Church never really split. Some people just left it, that's all.

I think I have a much better grip on apostolic succession now. Thank you all for the very good input given in this thread.

As for the Roman Catholic Church having valid apostolic succession, this would be better discussed in the debate forum. I myself do not care very much for arguing, but I do acknowledge that someone has to do it, which in this situation is definitely not me.

Once again, thank you all for your participation in this thread.

[Rick of Wessex]

Hi, Duchess!

The fillioque, papal infallibility, immaculate conception, pergatory, none of these things were taught by the Apostles. They are not differences of opinion, these teachings are called heresy by the Orthodox Church.

Don't mean to be picky, but the only RC doctrine could be considered heresy is the fillioque, because of its semi-sabellianistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism) formula.

Others, such as Immaculate Conception are wrong, but not necessarily herectic.

In XC,
Rick

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Hi, Duchess!

The fillioque, papal infallibility, immaculate conception, pergatory, none of these things were taught by the Apostles.
They are not differences of opinion, these teachings are called heresy by the Orthodox Church.
Don't mean to be picky, but the only RC doctrine could be considered heresy is the fillioque, because of its semi-sabellianistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism) formula.

Others, such as Immaculate Conception are wrong, but not necessarily herectic.

In XC,
RickWell, Mr. Picky Smarty Pants.......:P Thanks for the correction.:)

[Rick of Wessex]

Well, Mr. Picky Smarty Pants.......:P Thanks for the correction.:)

^_^ Don't mention it.

Rick

[entropy_rising]

Elizaveta - what sources do we use to know what the apostles taught?

[Akathist]

Tradition! Tradition! Tradition!

(and some Canon's too.)

[entropy_rising]

Tradition! Tradition! Tradition!

(and some Canon's too.)
Thornygrace: are there many differences between what Orthodoxs call Tradition and what Catholics call Tradition?

[Akathist]

Of course there is a difference. The Orthodox Tradition goes back to 33 A.D. In RC, some Traditions go back to 33 A.D. and some do not. (IMHO)

[entropy_rising]

Thanks. Right now in my spiritual journey I'm trying to root out the origins of the Church authority... especially with how great that authority is and where Peter stands in that authority. Alot of that, in both Orthodoy and Catholicism, is based on Tradition.

[Akathist]

Read the book "The Orthodox Church" by Timothy Ware (also known as Bishop Kollistos Ware, now retired.) It will give you the orthodox version.

I think in Catholicism, the official Catachism addresses this but there are probably other resources.

[Matthias]

In my research, BOTH the Orthodox Church AND the Roman Catholic Church can trace their roots back to Peter.

[MariaRegina]

In my research, BOTH the Orthodox Church AND the Roman Catholic Church can trace their roots back to Peter.

That's true.

St. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch (along with St. Paul)

St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (along with St. Paul)

Isn't that why St. Peter and St. Paul are shown in the Icon together. They were the key builders of our Holy Church. isn't that true?