The papacy

I'd really like to hear someone chime in who has more authority or knowledge on this. All I really remember is the nutshell version. 500ad we had 5 patriarchs each equal, but the one from Rome was given first honor (to speak?), then Constantinople, then Antioch, then Jerusalem, then Alexandria. After a few hundred years, the ones in Rome became more legalistic as they grew by growing more political power which was the way things were done there. This was until the point that the Patriarch (now Pope) got it in his head that since he was first among equals he was better and could boss them around. Then some jerk cardinal tried to excommunicate the patriarch of Constantinople, because of a variety of reasons. Partially social, partially economic, but basically the cardinal was trying to put the patriarch in his place. This apparently wasn't proper to do, and went against the councils as there wasn't unanimity or at least agreement from the other 3 patriarchs of the time. So the other three came in and sided with Constantinople and then excommunicated the pope of Rome in what was is 1056? This divide was rather cemented in a crusade a few hundred years later. So from one point of view we are the best, our pope is the top, we did the deed first. The more Orthodox point of view is, you were first among EQUALS, and what you did wasn't legal. Add a sprinkling of heresy here. Anyway I'd like to read something more authoritative. I believe another reason the Roman's say their authority is superior is because they derive theirs to Peter. Which is odd, the Romans were the ones to kill him, no?

I'd really like to hear someone chime in who has more authority or knowledge on this. All I really remember is the nutshell version. 500ad we had 5 patriarchs each equal, but the one from Rome was given first honor (to speak?), then Constantinople, then Antioch, then Jerusalem, then Alexandria. Ditto.

Regarding the issue of \"rebaptism,\" St. Cyprian had the support of the greater number of bishops in North Africa, along with some bishops in Asia Minor. He was not the first of mortals to practice \"rebaptism\"; earlier in Tertullian the tradition already is clearly established. While the teaching of Pope Stephen became the norm for the West (as reflected in St. Augustine and St. Vincent of Lerins) the issue was not the same for the East. St. Basil the Great, in his first canonical epistle (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.xi.html), provides a reasoning similiar to that of St. Cyprian, all the while maintaining an economy that takes into account how other bishops handle the situation differently. The canonical epistles of St. Basil were adopted into the canons of the Quinisext Council (Council in Trullo) and so remain of particular significance for Eastern Orthodox.

Think about it... St. Gregory the Dialogist himself, who was pope of Rome rejected today's understanding of papacy. He said that anyone who would take to himself rule of the entire church IS anti-christ. Pretty strong words, and they come from the Roman Pope himself. The Roman Pope before the split (great schism of 1054ad) did not consider himself ruler of the entire church. The Eastern Orthodox church held, and always will hold, that the pope was first among equals. Peter also established the antiochian see. There was also the see of Alexandria. They also referred to the Alexandrian bishop as the pope in historical texts. Pope is simply a latin term meaning \"papa.\" It was a term of endearment. The Traditional thought in regards to the pope of Rome was that he was first among equals. His decisions held greatest weight, but was not the sole decision maker in the church and he could be excommunicated and certainly was not infallible. There were ecumenical counsels where the pope was corrected and threatened with excommunication unless he change his opinion. Needless to say, the pope got inline (until the great schism of course). No one in the Orthodox church claims that the pope did have a sort of authoritative opinion, but there were obvious restrictions. After the conversion of the empire to constantinople, they continued to refer to Constantinople as Rome. They even called it the New Rome. There were controversies wondering if Rome was still first among equals or if that authority was now at constantinople. Then when Russia converted to Christianity, they were prophesied to be the Third Rome, and there would never be another Rome. This was prophesied by a Canonized Saint. Therefore, it there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the Roman Bishop was NEVER the supreme authority of the church, but only first among equals. He had a position of authority, but that authority only went so far. The farther Rome goes, the more they pervert that authority. No one could ever have imagined in the early church that they would declare the pope infallible! Many of the Catholic priests faught against this perversion, but ultimately it went how it went. The Pope is now considered infallible. There was already an abuse of power by the pope, now there is even more so. The Orthodox Bishops, to my understanding, are saying, \"Let the pope come back, let us return to days of old. He will return to being the first among equals. But away with this ungodly heresy that he is supreme ruler. We will not unite falsely to heresy!\"

I was re-reading what I posted and found an odd typo. Here it is corrected: \"No one in the Orthodox church claims that the pope did NOT have a sort of authoritative opinion\"

The practice of rebaptism in North Africa was prominent in N. Africa in part due to the schismatic Donatist sect. If we look at Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Coulncil in light of the 47th, 49th, and 50th Canons of the Holy Apostles what are we to make of the parctice of re-baptism? I reproduce them below. canon 7 Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, “The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies—for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:—all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them. Apostolic canons 47. If a bishop or presbyter rebaptizes him who has had true baptism, or does not baptize him who is polluted by the ungodly, let him be deprived, as ridiculing the cross and the death of the Lord, and not distinguishing between real priests and counterfeit ones. 49. If any bishop or presbyter does not baptize according to the Lord’s constitution, into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but into three beings without beginning, or into three Sons, or three Comforters, let him be deprived.37903790 From Apostolic Constitutions, vi. 11, 26.—R] 50. If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the three immersions of the one admission, but one immersion, which is given into the death of Christ, let him be deprived; for the Lord did not say, “Baptize into my death,” but, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Do ye, therefore, O bishops, baptize thrice into one Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the will of Christ, and our constitution by the Spirit.