Pope as the AC vs the Patriarch of Constantinople

Status
Not open for further replies.

nwink

Puritan Board Sophomore
For those who identify the office of the papacy as the Antichrist and "man of sin" (and identify Rome in Revelation), what place do you see the Patriarch of Constantinople as having in your view? Where does he and "Orthodoxy" fit into everything? How did the Puritans view Eastern Orthodoxy in general or even possibly in scripture? (My question is directed to both historicists or simply to those who hold to the view of the papacy as the Antichrist)

From my study of Eastern Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholicism, I've learned of the big differences even rooted in the difference in Greek vs Latin and the different cultures back in the day. Eastern Orthodoxy is still very wrong, but it's still a much different system from Roman Catholicism. So this is a very curious question I've had since this is a very prominent group under the name of "Christian" other than just Roman Catholicism. (As Protestants coming from the "Catholic" church in the Reformation, we tend to only think of us VS the "Catholics")

OR if you don't see them as having any place in your view, why did they "drop off the map" from your view or "drop out" of attention/focus in Scripture (regarding the historicist view)?
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, the Patriarch has never made claims about being the vicar of Christ on earth and that submission to him is required for admission to heaven.
 
The patriarch isn't like the Pope is that he is the 'head' and infallible authority of the church. However, the EO see themselves as an extension of the incarnation, which is bizarre and whatever that means anyway.
 
The Patriarch of Constantinople is one of four ancient Patriarchates and has been given the role of first among equals. The Orthodox do no believe in a "vicar" of Christ at all and they repudiate any claims the RC's make concerning that office.
 
The Patriarch of Constantinople is one of four ancient Patriarchates and has been given the role of first among equals. The Orthodox do no believe in a "vicar" of Christ at all and they repudiate any claims the RC's make concerning that office.
As far as I know, the Patriarch has never made claims about being the vicar of Christ on earth and that submission to him is required for admission to heaven.

Right, that makes sense. So would you say the RC pope is the more blasphemous and powerful one, and the EO patriarch is more like the forgotten step-child? With that being the case, would you view EO no differently than maybe some denomination, except they're wrong on important issues? My question isn't so much about specifics but how they fit into your views, if that makes sense.
 
I don't remember EO leading the Inquisition and burning Protestants for public spectacle. See Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
 
I don't remember EO leading the Inquisition and burning Protestants for public spectacle.

Right. So the focus would be on the RC as it was the persecutor of the true believers, and it is what true believers came out of at the Reformation.
 
So would you say the RC pope is the more blasphemous and powerful one, and the EO patriarch is more like the forgotten step-child?

I would say yes the office of pope is blasphemous because it maintains to be in place of Christ until He returns. The EO hierarchy, I don't know if it's blasphemy or not, is wrong because they believe they are the Apostles.

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------

“The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane...mentioning...by blasphemy...to profane jests, ...vain janglings, ...to charms or sinful lusts and practices.” WLC

Maybe the EO do fit the description above.
 
The EO hierarchy, I don't know if it's blasphemy or not, is wrong because they believe they are the Apostles.

Not exactly. Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox all believe in what is known as "apostolic succession"---that is, that the apostles gave authority to the Church. However, Reformed Protestants believe that this is preserved through faithfulness to apostolic teaching, whereas RCs, EOs, and Anglicans would argue that it is preserved through episcopal polity (ie: the continuous ordination of bishops since the apostles).

In response to the opening post: no more than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
 
"apostolic succession"

Not the full story either.

RC's believe the Pope has apostolic authority and the EO's believe true apostolic authority rests with the Bishops. For all intents and purposes they fulfill the role of Apostle by claiming succession from the Apostles.
 
RC's believe the Pope has apostolic authority and the EO's believe true apostolic authority rests with the Bishops. For all intents and purposes they fulfill the role of Apostle by claiming succession from the Apostles.

Whereas we would say that apostolic authority rests in Scripture.
 
RC's believe the Pope has apostolic authority and the EO's believe true apostolic authority rests with the Bishops. For all intents and purposes they fulfill the role of Apostle by claiming succession from the Apostles.

Whereas we would say that apostolic authority rests in Scripture.

Yes sir.
 
Interesting discussion.

Although it doesn't pertain to your study Nathan the pope of the Coptic church in Egypt is another interesting one to consider alongside those two.

I have to admit my knowledge of the specifics of the eastern orthodox and the egyptian churches is pretty basic, but I think you will find their heresies will be nothing compared to that of the pope.
 
The Coptic church separated from the rest of Orthodoxy after the Council of Chalcedon and reject councils that followed. I think it was recently summed up as a misunderstanding of language but it was probably more political. The Coptic Pope is first among equals among Coptic Bishops for holding the See of St. Mark.
 
To the extent that EO advocates point people in a wrong direction for salvation they are false prophets and antichrists, as are those who espouse Liberal Theology.

An antichrist or false "Christian" prophet is someone who maintains some veneer of Christianity while being so heretical that he points people away from Christ and sets up a false Christ in the Church. See Patrick Fairbairn's excellent "Interpretation of Prophecy" on this subject.

The Papacy is just the most prominent antichrist; the Antichrist.

These antichrists/false prophets - including the Papacy - are symbolically summarised by the Second Beast/ "Beast from the Earth" / False Prophet in Revelation 13.

Fairbairn also doesn't limit Babylon/the Whore to the Roman Catholic Church. As we know, apostasy by the Church isn't limited to Romanism, but also includes Liberalism, and the works righteousness of Eastern Orthodoxy/Greek Catholicism.

In the Apostle John's day the false prophets/antichrists took the form of Gnostic Christianity which denied that Christ had come in the flesh. Not all antichrists explicitly or implicitly deny this.

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (I John 4:1-3)

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. (Rev 16:3)

The Beast and the False Prophet represent the twin problems of persecution and false teaching that the Church faces, leading the Woman becoming Babylon, the Whore.
 
I think the geographical extent of Rome should also play into this as well. While there are certainly aspects of EO that are equally erroneous as the RC, the Papacy has mislead many more than the EO has or will.
 
To the extent that EO advocates point people in a wrong direction for salvation they are false prophets and antichrists, as are those who espouse Liberal Theology.

An antichrist or false "Christian" prophet is someone who maintains some veneer of Christianity while being so heretical that he points people away from Christ and sets up a false Christ in the Church. See Patrick Fairbairn's excellent "Interpretation of Prophecy" on this subject.

The Papacy is just the most prominent antichrist; the Antichrist.

These antichrists/false prophets - including the Papacy - are symbolically summarised by the Second Beast/ "Beast from the Earth" / False Prophet in Revelation 13.

Fairbairn also doesn't limit Babylon/the Whore to the Roman Catholic Church. As we know, apostasy by the Church isn't limited to Romanism, but also includes Liberalism, and the works righteousness of Eastern Orthodoxy/Greek Catholicism.

In the Apostle John's day the false prophets/antichrists took the form of Gnostic Christianity which denied that Christ had come in the flesh. Not all antichrists explicitly or implicitly deny this.

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (I John 4:1-3)

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. (Rev 16:3)

The Beast and the False Prophet represent the twin problems of persecution and false teaching that the Church faces, leading the Woman becoming Babylon, the Whore.

I agree and Amen to all Richard said and most the others. The Great Apostasy is the corruption of Christ’s church and Gospel by Rome and by the popes. The general fallen state of traditional Christianity, especially the Papacy, allowed the traditional Roman mysteries and deities of solar monism such as Mithras and Sol Invictus and idol worship into the church, and is not representative of the faith founded by Jesus and his twelve Apostles: in short, in , the RC church had fallen into apostasy as a result. In order to lure the Pagans to nominal Christianity, the Catholic Church and her popes wanting worldly power took measures to amalgamate the Christian and Pagan festivals so pagans would join the church; for example, bringing in the pagan festival of Easter as a substitute for the Pasch or Passover, although neither Jesus nor his Apostles enjoined the keeping of this or any other festival. This is why we who are reformed Protestants see Roman Catholicism as the ‘Whore of Babylon” It is why as ex Roman catholic I so openly renounce her and her pope. AI see the pope as the man odf sin and the papacy as an antichrist system.

WCF VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

I read ‘ J.A. Wylie's The History of Protestantism for a fuller view, and Papacy: Its History Dogmas Genius and Prospects when I was converting to Protestantism. I recommend all Protestants read it. It ells the truth about the papacy and the popes…the antichrist and the antichrist system......thus the whore of Babylon is the RCC!
 
The Ecumenical Patriarch is something akin to what the Pope of Rome was in ancient times - first among equals and an arbiter, but not a ruler or controller.

No popes of Rome since before the Reformation can said to have been believers, In my humble opinion. Patriarch Cyril I Loukaris of Constantinople was a Calvinist and attempted to bring the Eastern Church in line with Reformation teachings, but failed due to Turkish politics, Jesuit intrigue, and God's unsearchable yet all wise providence. May God raise up another Cyril to finish the job!
 
More info on the Calvinist Patriarch.

The Myth of the "Calvinist Patriarch"
While he knew Latin, it is clear from his many letters and writings, as well as from biographical data from contemporaries of his, that Patriarch Kyrillos could not have produced a polished text such as that of the original Latin "Confession." Indeed, many Greek scholars even dispute the claim that the Greek text, which appeared together with the Latin text four years later, was the work of Loukaris. Rather, it is argued by most Greek scholars that the text was essentially the work of Calvinist scholars with whom Cyril communicated on a regular basis and who condensed many of his letters and exchanges into a conveniently Calvinistic confession that ignored the Patriarch’s Orthodox understanding and grasp of reformed theology. For a brilliant textual analysis in support of these assumptions, see Professor Ioannis Karmiris, Orthodoxia kai Protestantismos (Athens, 1937). (Cf. Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, Kyrillos Loukaris [Athens, 1938].)​

Cyril Lucaris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Orthodox historian, Bishop Arseny (Bryantsev), challenged the authenticity of the correspondence and, incidentally, points to the 50 letters of Cyril of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich and Moscow Patriarch Filaret, stored in a Moscow archive of the main Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the evidence of Cyril's commitment to Orthodoxy, as well as in his 1622 letter in which he speaks of Protestantism as a blasphemous doctrine.​
 
The Ecumenical Patriarch is something akin to what the Pope of Rome was in ancient times - first among equals and an arbiter, but not a ruler or controller.

No popes of Rome since before the Reformation can said to have been believers, In my humble opinion. Patriarch Cyril I Loukaris of Constantinople was a Calvinist and attempted to bring the Eastern Church in line with Reformation teachings, but failed due to Turkish politics, Jesuit intrigue, and God's unsearchable yet all wise providence. May God raise up another Cyril to finish the job!

Amen Jonathan and I agree "May God raise up another Cyril to finish the job" and let us have a 21st century renewal of the Protestant Reformation!
 
Consider the source. The Greek church has consistently maintained that Cyril was NOT a Calvinist, but if you'll note earlier in the same Wikipedia article others say he was. This is a subject to debate, but my own research indicates he never repudiated the Calvinistic Confession, and "Even Dositheus, in view of the reputation of the great patriarch, thought it expedient to gloss over his heterodoxy in the interests of the Church."

Cyril Lucaris - OrthodoxWiki
 
Interesting discussion.

Although it doesn't pertain to your study Nathan the pope of the Coptic church in Egypt is another interesting one to consider alongside those two.

I have to admit my knowledge of the specifics of the eastern orthodox and the egyptian churches is pretty basic, but I think you will find their heresies will be nothing compared to that of the pope.
The Coptic Pope in Egypt is not the only Coptic Pope. The Patriarch of the Coptic Church of Ethiopia is also called a Pope.
With the canonical Eastern Orthodox Churches, Roman Catholics and Protestants share a common understanding of the Trinity and full divinity and humanity of our Lord. Coptics are monophysite heretics.
 
Last edited:
Allow me to offer some anecdotal evidence. After Russia sold Alaska to the USA the Russian Orthodox missionaries were largely withdrawn from Alaska. American Episcopal and Canadian Anglicans who made contact with the isolated Orthodox converts among the Indians and Eskimos in Alaska and the Yukon found that many of them were essentially evangelical in doctrine.
The Eastern Orthodox Church has never officially rejected the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith. The Church of Rome did. Therefore the Church of Rome officially lapsed into apostasy. Her head, the Bishop of Rome, is the head of an apostate body. The same can not be said of the canonical Eastern Orthodox Patriarch.
 
Consider the source. The Greek church has consistently maintained that Cyril was NOT a Calvinist, but if you'll note earlier in the same Wikipedia article others say he was. This is a subject to debate, but my own research indicates he never repudiated the Calvinistic Confession, and "Even Dositheus, in view of the reputation of the great patriarch, thought it expedient to gloss over his heterodoxy in the interests of the Church."

Cyril Lucaris - OrthodoxWiki

I think it's highly unlikely considering the Greek writings of Cyril that exist today call Prot teaching blasphemy...but hey, the Muslims installed a false Patriarch in Constantinople before and they were refuted as such latter. This shows that it can be done and they can be called false after.

jm
 
Last edited:
Allow me to offer some anecdotal evidence. After Russia sold Alaska to the USA the Russian Orthodox missionaries were largely withdrawn from Alaska. American Episcopal and Canadian Anglicans who made contact with the isolated Orthodox converts among the Indians and Eskimos in Alaska and the Yukon found that many of them were essentially evangelical in doctrine.
The Eastern Orthodox Church has never officially rejected the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith. The Church of Rome did. Therefore the Church of Rome officially lapsed into apostasy. Her head, the Bishop of Rome, is the head of an apostate body. The same can not be said of the canonical Eastern Orthodox Patriarch.

While it seems true, they don't like to expound texts for themselves and justification is virtually never talked of instead they focus on a sanctification-glorification doctrine which can only be done if one partakes in the sacraments in which one divine energy (grace) interacts with a human's semi-divine energy. Sounds more bizarre than evangelical, though I am not doubting some may believe in justification by faith, only it's never really talked about.
 
While it seems true, they don't like to expound texts for themselves and justification is virtually never talked of instead they focus on a sanctification-glorification doctrine which can only be done if one partakes in the sacraments in which one divine energy (grace) interacts with a human's semi-divine energy. Sounds more bizarre than evangelical, though I am not doubting some may believe in justification by faith, only it's never really talked about.

Part of it, Trent, is precisely that they don't talk this way. The debates of the 16th century are foreign to EO---the vocabulary doesn't make sense in an EO context. Part of the issue with trying to talk about salvation with an EO believer is the fact that inevitably you will end up talking past one another.
 
Other Popes are obviously not our favourites.
That is why the specific "Pope of Rome" is mentioned.

The Patriarchs of Orthodoxy may as well be Popes, but they are not like the Pope of Rome, they do not exalt themselves as he does. They are not the head of the greatest deception ever known.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top