Are the Orthodox right?

[catholic1seeks]

The original church only saw the bishop of Rome as a place of respect, the first among equals.

The only thing wrong with this statement is “ONLY.”

The earliest documents we have depict otherwise:

1. New Testament: Jesus singles out Peter with the Keys of the Kingdom. It would be unthinkable that Christ would bestow the keys, signifying his authority, on the Rock Peter if it was merely a “first among equals.” Why? Because that’s not how authority worked in the Jewish context. Take it further: The Keys are a direct reference to Isaiah 22, in which the Davidic King granted his steward the “keys” to “open” and “shut,” or to personally represent him. Peter is the Chief Steward under Christ. So continues this office in the Church.

2. Clement’s letter. This is another first century document, clearly depicting Rome’s ability to intervene into the affairs of another Christian community — this one being in Corinth! Rome expresses authority, as if a father to his children. Clement’s letter acts as if it’s Rome responsibility to look after other churches. In fact, this is what others say: In the Shepherd of Hermas, the author depicts Clement as having the “duty” to care for the churches abroad.

3. Ignatius of Antioch, in the early 2nd century, says as much — that it has always been Rome’s practice to care for the Church at large. In fact, he says that Rome “presides in love,” which many interpret the latter meaning the “brotherhood of love,” i.e., the Church in general. Regardless, Ignatius doesn’t issue commands to Rome like he does to the various churches of the East. No, he recognizes Rome’s origin in Peter and Paul, and he lastly leaves his Church back in Antioch under the shepherd of Rome, along with Christ.

Clearly, there is more than mere respect. Why is this respect being given? Can it be anything other than fatherly role granted to Peter and continued in his successor?

4. In the second century, the bishop of Rome – I believe Victor (I will have to check) – called for synods to recognize the Roman celebration of Easter. Then, after all other bishops were in agreement accept some in Asia Minor, Pope Victor proceeded to excommunicate these churches – from communion from the entire Church. If any other bishop attempted this, they’d laugh. But no one disagreed with Rome’s ability to do so. Again, this is no mere “first among equals.”

5. What you say is news to Irenaeus, as well, who speaks from the 2nd century, too. He says “all churches” – hear that? ALL Christians – must “agree” with Rome on account of its “superior origin.” He goes on to list the Bishops of Rome in succession from the beginning, and he says it is through this succession that the “apostolic tradition” has been maintained by all.

A mere respect? Hardly. Rome was the chief teacher that ALL must look up to.

These are all from second century or before. The Catholic understanding is evident quite early.

 

[Onthisrock84]

Yes and all Churches did respect the Bishop of Rome as the seat of honor. This was never disputed. But after the fall of western Rome he took on much more political influence and seemed to grow and grow with more superiority. I honestly do not think any of the early Christians would have thought the Pope was infallible. Yes Rome was where the decisions were made and the bishop had the last say however that did not mean not discussing things with the other patriarchs in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem etc. They still had a place of honor too.

 

[catholic1seeks]

You also have to realize that the idea of “primacy of honor” is a very later development — a kind of looking back and coming up with a label.

What would a primacy of honor mean in a Jewish context? Did the Keys to Peter mean Peter was just an honorary head with no authority to actually “feed” Christ’s sheep, as we see elsewhere in John?

That would be unheard of to a thoroughly Jewish context.

The Patriarchate theory, again, is a later development. What is inherent to the Church’s constitution is not Patriarchates, but the Apostles and their successors, with Peter being their head.

In the earliest* church, even before Constanintople came along, you have a very different theory: That Rome’s authority wasn’t political or even just ecclesiastical/canonical – but apostolic and divine.

 

[catholic1seeks]

OP ~ I have had several posts relating to the papacy. Feel free to search them. Or private message me. But I hate the feeling of repeating myself, so I probably won’t engage much more here.

Some articles I often recommend:

Archbishop Minnerath on Rome, the Papacy, and the East | Called to Communion

The following is one I did, but I did it because I feel like not much of an attempt is made to actually look at Peter himself in the New Testament. I think even just looking at Peter’s role is very telling for how the Bishop of Rome is supposed to behave in regards to primacy:

The Pope as Peter – Smelly Sheep

 

[Catholicwife32]

This is how I currently see it. The short version is that God allowed the Counsel of Trent to declare Papal infallibility for the sake of uniting the Church. But the Pope has only clearly used that authority minimally and only immediately after the counsel to engage in a profound act of reconcilation with the east at some point in the future. His papal infallibility, if we actually believe it needs to humble us, needs to lead the whole of the Church that gets caught up in her ideologies.

The east explains the meaning of the cross and sin much more adequately than the west does. She respects the liturgy better. We have so much to learn from our eastern siblings. I can’t convert from Catholicism at this point because I can’t believe that I need to ensure that I live only in a place where there is an Orthodox church. I need valid sacraments. The west was prideful and we need to reach out to the east in humility.

Can Catholics disprove Eastern Orthodoxy? Eastern Catholicism

I don’t think that we should be doing that. Imagine it like this. You’ve got a husband and a wife. The husband is a domineering bully and uses the words of St. Paul to tell his wife that she must always obey and serve him and that fearing him is even a good thing. That certainly is one way to interpret that passage. The woman prays and recognizes that the interpretation is wrong and that her husband’s pride is making him blind. She responds by standing up for herself and arguing with him, but …

 

[steve-b]

I grew up Catholic but after a lot of research I have come to realize their is no fault of the Orthodox in the schism. The original church only saw the bishop of Rome as a place of respect, the first among equals.

Then Card Ratzinger, head of the “Doctrine of Faith” under JPII, approved by JPII, in the Audience of June 9, 2000, wrote about that history.

Excerpt:

(emphasis mine)

Re: 1st among equals, and this equalization of sees and "sister Churches"

"The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that.
In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]
The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

AND

Re: "sister Churches"

• Sister Church clarification 2013

AND

Going back to 06 on CA forum, Fr Ambrose, ROCOR, wrote

"There is no such thing as a first among equals; this is a nonsensical term. If someone is first, the others are not equal; if all are equal, then none is first".

I couldn’t say it better. That’s why I saved it. Fr Ambrose and I talked a lot while he was here.

Onthisrock84:

Nowhere did it ever mean the bishop was infallible.

can’t prove negatives

Onthisrock84:

The church of Antioch also claimed and claims succession from Peter.

Peter WAS in Antioch. Peter went to Rome . That is his see.

 

[Vonsalza]

We’ve been over this, catholic1seeks.

The earliest documents we have depict otherwise:
1. New Testament: Jesus singles out Peter with the Keys of the Kingdom. It would be unthinkable that…

Argument from absence.

Take it further: The Keys are a direct reference to Isaiah 22,

If that’s true, then you have to explain away why THIS time the keys aren’t transferable like they are in Isaiah 22.

2. Clement’s letter. This is another first century document, clearly depicting Rome’s ability to intervene into the affairs of another Christian community

Sure - as an arbiter, as echoed by his contemporary Irenaeus. This early in Christian history, the primacy was still intact.

3. Ignatius of Antioch, in the early 2nd century, says as much — that it has always been Rome’s practice to care for the Church at large.

“Always”, at that point, being roughly 50 years. As Rome was the Church very recently (in his time) founded by the “glorious” Saints Peter and Paul and located in the Imperial capital, it’s where the Christian thinkers of the day went.

The error here is assuming “Rome” means “The pope of Rome”. Church leadership at that point in history was likely as curial as “papal”.

4. In the second century, the bishop of Rome – I believe Victor (I will have to check) – called for synods to recognize the Roman celebration of Easter. Then, after all other bishops were in agreement accept some in Asia Minor, Pope Victor proceeded to excommunicate these churches

And then got backed down… Interesting interpretation you’ve spun there.

5. What you say is news to Irenaeus, as well, who speaks from the 2nd century, too. He says “all churches” – hear that? ALL Christians – must “agree” with Rome on account of its “superior origin.”

The quote continues " For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

In Against Heresies, the Roman Church is an arbiter in the dispute among the Corinthians. Moreover, per Irenaeus, the letter isn’t dispatched by Clement, but rather “The Church at Rome”.

These are all from second century or before. The Catholic understanding is evident quite early.

Starting with a pro-Catholic bias, you’re completely right.

One small problem…

 

[Onthisrock84]

Good citations but let us not forget the Church Fathers are not infallible even though Clement and Ignatius of Antioch are considered Apostolic Fathers, and their letters in the early church were even read in liturgy at mass, it doesn’t mean that they are without error. In fact quite a few Church fathers which are cited many times in the Church are not considered Saints. The best example is Tertullian who yes his writings are used very much to interpret the early Church however he later on fell into the heresy of Montanism, thus is not a recognized Saint.

 

[runningdude]

How can this even be countered? It is all historical fact.

While Peter was bishop of both Antioch and Rome in his life time, Peter appointed a successor in Antioch to carry out the local ministry, while bringing his universal ministry with him to Rome. Peter was matryred in Rome, and only his successor there inhererted what is now the Papal ministry.

Regarding changes in teachings, understanding of the truth improves over time, usually through the resolution of theological disputes. The Bishop of Rome had long been considered a court of last resort for theological disputes. This had always been a source of tension between the Greek patriarchs and the Latin Patriarch. Infallibility in matters of faith is a corrolary to position of last resort.

The Greek churches broke away from Rome before eccumenical councils settled the issues of controversy you mention. The Greek churches acknowledge only the first seven councils, but not later ones they did not participate in. Teachings and practice can only be amended by a council in Greek theology.

Ironically, they have never considered holding a council themselves, because Rome is in schism, and thus the council would not be eccumenical.

Thus Rome was able to advance theology because it alone could validly call a council. The Greek churches are stuck in the middle ages, theologically.

 

[billsannie]

Before the separation the Bishop of Rome, now called the Pope, was one of twelve bishops who headed the Church. Because of Peter he had special authority, but he was only considered the first among equals, in no way the head of the Church. This was the way of things until the Schism. The Church had twelve men leading it, yet it was still the Church.

 

[twf]

Catholics need to recognize that there has been significant development over the centuries in regards to the papacy. That being said, it is clear that even early popes like St Leo the Great assumed and exercised a real primacy… though of course the Pope was not micromanaging the Church or appointing bishops around the world as is the case today.
If I rejected the papal office, I would then have to ask: which Orthodox? The Eastern or Oriental communions? The Orientals reject Chalcedon… I only accept it because of Rome.

 

[AlNg]

Was there anything to the accusations of King Philip and five archbishops and twenty one bishops against Pope Boniface VIII? The accusations are extremely severe so I hesitate to repeat them here.
Anyway who today believes that “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
What does that mean for all Jews in Israel, and all Japanese who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff and all people living in north Korea who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff ? Is the Dalai Lama subject to the Roman Pontiff?

 

[AlNg]

You brought up the subject of Unam Sanctam and now you don’t want anyone to comment on what you yourself have brought up? If you bring up an issue, in the interests of fairness, other people should be able to discuss the question.

 

[Vonsalza]

The rejection of Chalcedonian theology has long, long since been cleared up. They remain in schism for roughly the same reasons as the EO.

I think a reunification between EO and OO is something I might actually live to see.

 

[catholic1seeks]

One has to be careful they don’t come to the discussion with other motives. Does someone WANT the Orthodox position to be right? Does someone WANT the Catholic position to be right?

I may be Catholic, but I have no real problem following the evidence. Catholicism, compared to Orthodoxy, doesn’t make life any easier nor more difficult for me. Same with Orthodoxy compared to Catholicism.

I respect the Christian East and would gladly go there, if I believed the evidence pointed there (Orthodoxy).

Thankfully, I can both be Catholic and accept basically any eastern tradition - not just Byzantine.

 

[ziapueblo]

From the Chieti Document:

1. Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a procedure.(14) Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692).(15) The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring the bishop’s own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the see of Constantinople,(16) and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees were always treated in a synodical way. Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.

 

[Vonsalza]

I totally agree.

As such, texts that lack a dog in the fight are usually best.

My favorite are The Reformation and Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by MacColluch (sp?).

As a practical atheist that enjoys Anglican orthopraxy, he wouldn’t be too concerned about either side in Rome v. Constantinople.

 

[Vonsalza]

Here you highlight what I describe (maybe uncharitably) as Catholic Schizophrenia.

One minute the papacy developed. The next minute, it did not and current papal power has been ever-present.

 

[PeterT]

semper_catholicus:

I’ve heard it said before that all the Apostled enjoyed personal infallibility in matters of faith and morals, but Peter was the head.

Did Peter have universal and supreme jurisdiction over the entire church including James? But James is mentioned first, then after James, Peter is mentioned, indicating that Peter came second. Gal 2:9.

Mmm…

Our Lord, Christ Jesus, clearly stated that Peter would lead His church. How can anyone dispute that is beyond me. What’s not clear in the Bible is how the successor to Peter would be selected. But our Lord himself stated clearly that Peter would be the first head of His church on Earth.

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” — Matthew 16:18 (NABRE)

 

[Vonsalza]

What’s not clear in the Bible is how the successor to Peter would be selected.

And as our Protestant friends point out, it’s not clear Peter was supposed to have a successor.

I personally think he was supposed to. I’m just pointing out the assumptions we often make when interpreting a given text.

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” — Matthew 16:18 (NABRE)

I agree, the Church cannot fail.

Peter sure can, though. It’s only a few verses later that Christ calls Peter “Satan”.