Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Cavaradossi]

Back to our original citation from St. John Chrysostom on Jn 21:15-17 (which I believe Fr. Chapman refers back to at the very end of the aforementioned citation), The Catholic Encyclopedia comments:

“Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria (‘In Joan.’ 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture … …to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.”

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 26 Oct. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

Sorry for that lengthy citation from Dom Chapman and for the lengthy posts

But it is not St. Cyril alone who taught this, but also St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and the Venerable Bede, among others.

 

[LionHeart777]

But it is not St. Cyril alone who taught this, but also St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and the Venerable Bede, among others.

I just edited that post for reference, but I think I addressed the other Saints in my first post. I digress, I’m out.

–Nick

 

[frjohnmorris]

Back to our original citation from St. John Chrysostom on Jn 21:15-17 (which I believe Fr. Chapman refers back to at the very end of the aforementioned citation), The Catholic Encyclopedia comments:

“Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter.

The Fathers, Ecumenical Councils and the Eastern Orthodox Church never denied that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles. The issue that divides us is what authority did it give him or his successors? The historic record is that it was a primacy of honor, not of jurisdiction and did not give either St. Peter or his successors the authority to unilaterally declare the doctrine of the Church. During the period before the schism, that authority only belonged to an Ecumenical Council. The Bishop of Rome also had no authority to interfere in the election or internal affairs of the other Patriarchs. The Ecumenical Councils also assumed authority over all Bishops including the Bishop of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Wandile]

1.599 billion?

Actually this is incorrect especially in Muslim countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc where you are born Muslim and conversion from the faith means death. (True story)

In these countries one,can go to jail or even be put to death for carrying a bible in public or speaking about Christianity in public. A huge amount of those Muslims are forced into observing the religion. But by some miracle apparently there is a huge underground church growing in these areas . These people are apparently Muslim in public but Christian at home.

 

[Wandile]

But the fathers, many of them considered by your Church to be Doctors, do make that exact assertion, that Christ by his threefold questioning of Peter was wiping away his threefold denial. I thought that the Tridentine Creed instructed that all Catholics were supposed to adhere to the opinion of the fathers in their exegesis of the scriptures, but then perhaps this old article of the Catholic faith (even the Orthodox, after all, would affirm that this is a tenet of the Catholic faith as we know it ourselves) has been superseded by something that I am unaware of.

We still adhere. And lion heart showed quotes from other fathers who proves our point. Or did you just ignore that ?

 

[steve_b]

I know it was directed at him, but you asked for the Homily, I thought I’d be helpful and give you the homily. I didn’t think it would matter who gave you the source.

The polite thing for you to do would be to say thank you.

I asked for a quote. The response I was given was not a quote but a homily that I’m supposed to extrapolate a quote from, that answered the question I asked. So I find Chrysostom writing “(James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion.”

Is that the quote I’m supposed to find?

on a previous post I also wrote what Chrysostom wrote (Re: Peter) in a homily on John where he writes

He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. [homily 88 John]

 

[Wandile]

I asked for a quote. The response I was given was not a quote but a homily that I’m supposed to extrapolate a quote from, that answered the question I asked. So I find Chrysostom writing “(James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion.”

Is that the quote I’m supposed to find?

on a previous post I also wrote what Chrysostom wrote (Re: Peter) in a homily on John where he writes

He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. [homily 88 John]

Hmmm that quote is really interesting

Peter has a universal teaching jurisdiction ? That sounds a bit… “Pope-ish”

 

[frjohnmorris]

I asked for a quote. The response I was given was not a quote but a homily that I’m supposed to extrapolate a quote from, that answered the question I asked. So I find Chrysostom writing “(James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion.”

Is that the quote I’m supposed to find?

on a previous post I also wrote what Chrysostom wrote (Re: Peter) in a homily on John where he writes

He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. [homily 88 John]

The East has always taught that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles. On that we agree. We disagree on what that means and whether or not such authority was transferred to the Bishops of Rome. It would be impossible to defend the current claims of the papacy based on the Biblical record of the role that St. Peter played in the Apostolic Church. There is nothing in the New Testament that St. Peter exercised anything like the authority the Popes now claim. St. Peter never unilaterally proclaimed doctrine, nor did he assume monarchical authority over the other Apostles. When the Church faced problems with the Judaizers, St. Peter did not issue a papal like decree, he submitted the matter to the Council of Jerusalem for a decision. St. Peter spoke, but so did St. Paul and St. James rendered the decision. The Apostlic letter was not written in the name of St. Peter, but was issued in the name of the Apostles and Presbyters gathered for the council. The Church continued to deal with heresies through councils, the 7 Ecumenical Councils, not through papal decree by the Bishop of Rome. The Ecumenical Councils demanded obedience from the Bishop of Rome as we see in the case of Pope Vigallus who was threatened with excomunication by the II Council of Constantinople unless he accepted the decisions of the 5th Ecumenical Council. Thus, the historic record shows that the claims of the modern papacy are far beyond the authority accorded to St. Peter or his successors in Rome during the age of the ancient undivided Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Wandile]

The East has always taught that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles. On that we agree. We disagree on what that means and whether or not such authority was transferred to the Bishops of Rome. It would be impossible to defend the current claims of the papacy based on the Biblical record of the role that St. Peter played in the Apostolic Church. There is nothing in the New Testament that St. Peter exercised anything like the authority the Popes now claim. St. Peter never unilaterally proclaimed doctrine, nor did he assume monarchical authority over the other Apostles. When the Church faced problems with the Judaizers, St. Peter did not issue a papal like decree, he submitted the matter to the Council of Jerusalem for a decision. St. Peter spoke, but so did St. Paul and St. James rendered the decision. The Apostlic letter was not written in the name of St. Peter, but was issued in the name of the Apostles and Presbyters gathered for the council. The Church continued to deal with heresies through councils, the 7 Ecumenical Councils, not through papal decree by the Bishop of Rome. The Ecumenical Councils demanded obedience from the Bishop of Rome as we see in the case of Pope Vigallus who was threatened with excomunication by the II Council of Constantinople unless he accepted the decisions of the 5th Ecumenical Council. Thus, the historic record shows that the claims of the modern papacy are far beyond the authority accorded to St. Peter or his successors in Rome during the age of the ancient undivided Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father with all due respect, you didn’t address the quote. You just repeated the same claims that you’ve made previously before In this thread. You didn’t address the fact that Chrysostom says Peter had a universal teaching authority.

I’m tired of non-Catholics making it seem like the Pope , since he has universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility, doesn’t use councils and this is somehow evidence against the modern papacy… Ding ding ding ding… VATICAN II anybody? And I can without a doubt assure you father that although the pope has Universal Jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility, he was not,the only person who spoke at the council. The fact that the council happened is already detrimental to your whole “If Peter had all that the modern papacy claims now, why didn’t he just issue a papal decree instead of having a council” argument

 

[Nine_Two]

I asked for a quote.

And then you continued to make it seem as though it was the appearance of 55 homilies which was your real issue.

I am sorry, I will do my utmost to not try to help you out in the future.

 

[Nine_Two]

Hmmm that quote is really interesting

Peter has a universal teaching jurisdiction ? That sounds a bit… “Pope-ish”

It is also not something we take issue with. If that is how the West saw the pope there wouldn’t be an issue around him.

So if Catholics want to proclaim that the Bishop of Rome has Universal Teaching Authority rather than Universal Jurisdiction, that would go a long way to solving our issues.

 

[dzheremi]

St. Peter ≠ The Pope of Rome, forever in perpetuity throughout the universe.

By way of comparison, we do not say that the Coptic Pope is St. Mark (though St. Mark is recorded, according to Alexandrian reckoning anyway, as the first Pope of the COC), nor that HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas (or for that matter, John X, as far as I know) is St. Peter, or that HH Catholicos Karekin II is St. Thaddeus/Jude. All of these Sees are imbued with much honor and authority by virtue of their apostolic origin, but a typological identification can only go so far. Only Rome has developed this idea of its own supremacy, universal jurisdiction, and inerrancy based on its apostolic lineage, and those ideas are not supported by scripture, nor any early church fathers.

There is no problem with recognizing Peter as the prince of the Apostles, which he was. There is a very big problem with saying that because Peter was the prince of the apostles, therefore his successors at Rome (and for some reason only at Rome, despite the fact that this is not the only Petrine See even according to ancient Roman/Latin sources) have all kinds of unique authority and jurisdiction over everyone and everything in the Church. That is unsupportable and unacceptable.

 

[Wandile]

It is also not something we take issue with. If that is how the West saw the pope there wouldn’t be an issue around him.

So if Catholics want to proclaim that the Bishop of Rome has Universal Teaching Authority rather than Universal Jurisdiction, that would go a long way to solving our issues.

Really? So,you are okay the with the Pope teaching something and then declaring it binding on the the whole church by virtue of his teaching authority?

 

[Zekariya]

Until AD 325, there was the Petrine See of Rome, the Petrine See of Alexandria, and the Petrine See of Antioch. In AD 325, Jerusalem was added to that list.

In AD 381, the Byzantine Emperor wanted his new capital to be a metropolitan See. Constantinople was added and place above all of the other Sees except Rome. Rome and Alexandria did not accept this change. The bishop of Constantinople made sure that the bishop of Rome knew that this was not his desire.

Even in the mid-400s, Rome, in the person of Pope St Leo, still did not accept this change in ecclesiology. Byzantine Alexandria, no longer having any power do to the Miaphysite schism, no longer contested this change in ecclesiology.

Ante-Nicene Rome clearly had a primacy of more than just “honor”. However, the Byzantine Emperor supported and gave power to a See that would, with the strength of the emperor, become Rome’s first and only rival. Pope St Leo and Pope St Gregory are two pre-schism popes that are held high by the Eastern Orthodox that plainly saw Rome as having a primacy much higher than just “honor”.

The Byzantine Emperors would continue balancing out and strengthening the Byzantine Empire by calling councils in order to preserve the state religion as a unified confederation of metropolitan Sees.

The Catholic Church accepts the infallibility of doctrine and morals proclaimed by the Ecumenical Councils. However, unlike the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, she does not consider the disciplinary actions of an Ecumenical Council as being infallible and unchangeable.

Not everything that was done under the power of the Byzantine Emperor was an example of how things were always done. Rome’s power might have been weakened by a rival See that was raised by the emperor, however, this does not prove Rome to only have a primacy of “honor”.

Rome would finally allow the See of Constantinople to be second to Rome after the Fourth Council of Constantinople.

 

[Randy_Carson]

St. Peter ≠ The Pope of Rome, forever in perpetuity throughout the universe.

By way of comparison, we do not say that the Coptic Pope is St. Mark (though St. Mark is recorded, according to Alexandrian reckoning anyway, as the first Pope of the COC), nor that HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas (or for that matter, John X, as far as I know) is St. Peter, or that HH Catholicos Karekin II is St. Thaddeus/Jude. All of these Sees are imbued with much honor and authority by virtue of their apostolic origin, but a typological identification can only go so far. Only Rome has developed this idea of its own supremacy, universal jurisdiction, and inerrancy based on its apostolic lineage, and those ideas are not supported by scripture, nor any early church fathers.

There is no problem with recognizing Peter as the prince of the Apostles, which he was. There is a very big problem with saying that because Peter was the prince of the apostles, therefore his successors at Rome (and for some reason only at Rome, despite the fact that this is not the only Petrine See even according to ancient Roman/Latin sources) have all kinds of unique authority and jurisdiction over everyone and everything in the Church. That is unsupportable and unacceptable.

Because after his travels, the “chair of Peter” his cathedra, came to rest permanently at Rome since Peter wasn’t going to move it again. But here we see the Divine purpose at work, for by basing the Church in the heart of the empire, God was able to expand the Church outward in all directions as you and Fr. John have pointed out so well in previous posts.

But here’s a related question: Can you tell me the apostolic origins of Constantinople and Moscow? Which of the Apostles visited and established these sees?

Thanks.

 

[Nine_Two]

Really? So,you are okay the with the Pope teaching something and then declaring it binding on the the whole church by virtue of his teaching authority?

That is stepping far beyond the authority to teach.

In schools, teachers have a curriculum. They have to teach from that, and none of them have the power to change it. Similarly the Pope has the authority to teach from the curriculum (canons, scripture Holy Tradition) he has been given, but not the authority to set the curriculum.

 

[steve_b]

For those who have an elementary grasp of the English language (assuming of course, that the English translation accurately reflects the Greek original) and are capable of reading sentences in the context of the paragraph they are in, it should be clear that St. John Chrysostom is saying that James is not responsible for the acts (i.e., “what has been done”) of Peter and Paul, for he had no acts (those being accounts of missionary activity amongst the gentiles) of his own to declare, being locally fixed in Jerusalem.

Besides, we know that James was invested with chief rule at this council because St. John Chrysostom along with calling him teacher in the very quotation made read above, also says explicitly of St. James, “for James was invested with the chief rule.”

Wait a minute. These guys {Judaisers} who were causing the trouble were from James own party. Therefore, what I think is meant by James not having anything to do with what’s going on here, is that Peter gave the teaching, & James had nothing to do with making that actual decision. James went along with Peter’s decision and being bishop of Jerusalem, confirmed what Peter taught… That’s how I’m reading it.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

When I have time (hopefully soon), I will attempt to address these important matters you bring up. I am an Oriental Catholic, coming from an Oriental Orthodox background, and I’ve always considered the Oriental Tradition as sort of a middle-way between the (seemingly) polar Latin and Eastern Traditions. I’m always trying my best to be a bridge between the two.

Just as there is a difference between the official Magisterial teaching and popular belief/apologetics regarding the filioque, there is actually also a difference between official Magisterial teaching and popular belief/apologetics on the papal issues of Vatican 1. I hope to present to you clear proof from the Magisterial documents that there might be hope for concord between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, even in the matter of the papacy.

Just as a teaser: the official, Magisterial teaching of the Church is represented by the High Petrine view, while the popular belief/apologetics is often (not always) represented by the Absolutist Petrine view.

I will explain these two positions (the Absolutist Petrine view and the High Petrine view), hopefully soon. The presentation might be an eye-opener, hopefully.

Humbly,
Marduk

The East has always taught that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles. On that we agree. We disagree on what that means and whether or not such authority was transferred to the Bishops of Rome. It would be impossible to defend the current claims of the papacy based on the Biblical record of the role that St. Peter played in the Apostolic Church. There is nothing in the New Testament that St. Peter exercised anything like the authority the Popes now claim. St. Peter never unilaterally proclaimed doctrine, nor did he assume monarchical authority over the other Apostles. When the Church faced problems with the Judaizers, St. Peter did not issue a papal like decree, he submitted the matter to the Council of Jerusalem for a decision. St. Peter spoke, but so did St. Paul and St. James rendered the decision. The Apostlic letter was not written in the name of St. Peter, but was issued in the name of the Apostles and Presbyters gathered for the council. The Church continued to deal with heresies through councils, the 7 Ecumenical Councils, not through papal decree by the Bishop of Rome. The Ecumenical Councils demanded obedience from the Bishop of Rome as we see in the case of Pope Vigallus who was threatened with excomunication by the II Council of Constantinople unless he accepted the decisions of the 5th Ecumenical Council. Thus, the historic record shows that the claims of the modern papacy are far beyond the authority accorded to St. Peter or his successors in Rome during the age of the ancient undivided Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Nine_Two]

Until AD 325, there was the Petrine See of Rome, the Petrine See of Alexandria, and the Petrine See of Antioch. In AD 325, Jerusalem was added to that list.

In AD 381, the Byzantine Emperor wanted his new capital to be a metropolitan See. Constantinople was added and place above all of the other Sees except Rome. Rome and Alexandria did not accept this change. The bishop of Constantinople made sure that the bishop of Rome knew that this was not his desire.

Even in the mid-400s, Rome, in the person of Pope St Leo, still did not accept this change in ecclesiology. Byzantine Alexandria, no longer having any power do to the Miaphysite schism, no longer contested this change in ecclesiology.

Ante-Nicene Rome clearly had a primacy of more than just “honor”. However, the Byzantine Emperor supported and gave power to a See that would, with the strength of the emperor, become Rome’s first and only rival. Pope St Leo and Pope St Gregory are two pre-schism popes that are held high by the Eastern Orthodox that plainly saw Rome as having a primacy much higher than just “honor”.

You’re giving an example of a fight Rome ultimately lost to show that she had more power than we give her credit for? I’m afraid I don’t possibly see how this shows Rome’s power.

 

[Zekariya]

You’re giving an example of a fight Rome ultimately lost to show that she had more power than we give her credit for? I’m afraid I don’t possibly see how this shows Rome’s power.

I gave this example to show that Rome has more power according to the Tradition of the Church than those that seem to be “Sola Ecumenical Councilists” admit. The bishop of Rome existed and had power before the Ecumenical Councils. Rome was given a rival by the 2nd Ecumenical Council. And, no, Rome ultimately remained in power while Constantinople lost most of its power. In fact, many would say that Moscow (aka the Third Rome) has more power than Constantinople.