Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[frjohnmorris]

So if I understand you correctly, St. Peter was first in honor, but not set apart by our Lord for any unique function among the apostles?

Could you also comment on the idea of the Bishop of Rome as a unique successor to St. Peter, and him having a unique care for the unity of the Church?

I do not believe that the Bishop of Rome is a unique successor to St. Peter or that he has unique care for the unity of the Church. In a sense all Bishops are successors to St. Peter. Certainly the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is a successor to St. Peter. What is it that makes Rome special? Sts. Peter and Paul also led the Church of Antioch but Antioch was given 4th place among the ancient Patriarchs. Rome had a primacy of honor because Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire. When the capital moved to Constantinople, its Bishop was given equal rank with the Bishop of the Old Rome at the Council of Chalcedon. During the age of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils, I see no evidence that the Bishop of Rome exercised any unique authority over the councils or the other 4 Patriarchs. Each local Church was independent and administered its own affairs as provided in the canons. If Rome had had universal jurisdiction or infallibility, the canons would have clearly show it. The do not. Therefore, Rome did not have either universal jurisdiction, nor infallibility. Instead, I believe that the historical record shows that the Bishop or Rome occupied the same position that the Ecumenical Patriarch occupies in the modern Eastern Orthodox Church. I believe that most Roman Catholic historians would agree, but would see the development of the papacy and the 1st Vatican Council as the work of God. I see this development as a radical departure from the norm set during the age of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Fr. John

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

You’re bringing up a completely different issue here that was never being considered - whether the bible can have literal and figurative meanings. Of course it is. The issue is factual inerrancy, which is something we don’t believe. I gave you another example where there are very different facts presented, although there are plenty of others. We believe the Bible in inerrant on faith and morals, however eye witness testimony (as we have in the gospels) can and do have errors of fact.

…

I’m surprised Fr. John didn’t answer this one. If you have any experience with historical documents you know they abound with such basic discrepancies. In fact it is quite suspicious when they agree completely.
You’re assuming that the day of the Last Supper was seen by the gospel writers as being of important note, something they would do their best to make sure was correct. It really wasn’t, which is why they clearly do have a different date.
I’m having a very difficult time understanding where you are coming from. In one sentence you proclaim that it is unthinkable that there should be any testimonial error in the Gospels, then later in the post you say that if there is such an error you will side with the synoptics (Which tradition is correct is beyond the bounds of my point, and frankly I see it as unimportant). Would you mind clarifying. Are you saying they do disagree, or that they can’t disagree (my initial issue)?

You are correct that historical accounts more often than not disagree on facts. However, no honest historian sets out to create a history that deliberately contains error. If the Gospel accounts are historical and they have God as their author, then it follows that they cannot err in basic facts. If an honest historian had a choice to either insert a statement he knew to be factual or a statement statement he knew to be false, he would never choose the false statement. Why, then, would God ever put a false statement in a historical account when he knows the correct statement? The Scriptures were penned by human authors who could err by themselves, but they have God, who cannot err, for their primary author, which is why Peter says, Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

When I said I would side with the Synoptics if the Gospels disagreed on the date of the Last Supper, I was not saying I believed that they disagreed or that they could disagree, but I was making a concession for the sake of an argument. The argument put forward by certain Orthodox polemicists is that leavened bread is the only valid matter for the Eucharist because Christ used leavened bread, the Last Supper being before the Passover. However, the only Gospel account which even seems to justify moving the Last Supper to before Passover is John’s Gospel. But, as Fr. Morris said, John’s Gospel draws much more heavily on the symbolism of the lamb, so John would have more reason to move the actual dates (to draw out symbolism), whereas the Synoptic writers do not have any special reason to move the Crucifixion to after the slaughtering of the lambs Christ actually was crucified with the lambs. That is why I said that if the Gospels disagreed (which they don’t), I would side with the Synoptics, since they don’t have any reason to deviate from the factual dates whereas John conceivably might.

In fact, the Gospels do not disagree on the date of the Last Supper. It almost without doubt occurred the evening of Nisan 15, the same night that the Passover meal was eaten. All three Synoptics agree on this point. Moreover, one of the Evangelists was the Apostle Matthew, who would not have forgotten the date of the Last Supper and Crucifixion. If you say that Matthew is wrong on this point, I don’t see how this is anything other than a denial of Matthean authorship. The Eastern Orthodox deny that there is any development of doctrine and they believe the same traditions that have been handed down from the Apostles. The unanimous tradition of the Church is that Matthew authored the Gospel bearing his name so it is not clear how it is possible to believe so strongly in the authority and stability of Tradition if the Fathers all erred on this point. For that reason, I would be inclined to take Matthew at his word. John also was an Apostle, but his Gospel can be easily read in a way that does not deny the Synoptic chronology. The solutions are not difficult ones.

 

[frjohnmorris]

St. John Chrysostom’s statement about the apparent discrepancies in the Gospels may seem to be a denial of inerrancy but I am not so sure that this is the case. First remember that this is the same Chrysostom who wrote on Genesis,

Don’t worry, dearly beloved; don’t think Sacred Scripture ever contradicts itself. Learn instead the truth of what it says, hold fast to what it teaches in truth, and close your ears to those who speak against it. (Homilies on Genesis 4.8)

You may think that he is speaking only of “important” matters such as the truth of the Incarnation, but the context here is that he is arguing against those who assert from Scripture that there are multiple heavens, instead saying that there is only a single heaven, the “firmament” mentioned in Genesis. Maybe you will say that the existence of only a single heaven is an important dogma that is essential for salvation, but I think most would disagree unless it were the explicit teaching of Scripture.

The place where he speaks about the discrepancies in the Gospels is from his Homily I on Matthew.

“But the contrary,” it may be said, “hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.” Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.

But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.

But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He hath given commandments tending to salvation, that He hath brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these we shall find that there is in them a full agreement.

And if amongst the miracles they have not all of them mentioned all, but one these, the other those, let not this trouble thee. For if on the one hand one had spoken of all, the number of the rest would have been superfluous; and if again all had written fresh things, and different one from another, the proof of their agreement would not have been manifest. For this cause they have both treated of many in common, and each of them hath also received and declared something of his own; that, on the one hand, he might not seem superfluous, and cast on the heap to no purpose; on the other, he might make our test of the truth of their affirmations perfect. (Homilies on Matthew 1.6)

He says in this passage that minor differences in times and places are not important,
but I am not sure that this is a denial of inerrancy on his part. His argument is against those who say that the Scriptures are entirely untrustworthy and riddled with error. First, he would have to establish the truth of Scripture in basic matters before he could begin an argument for total inerrancy. He also says, “But that they are not opposed to each other, this we will endeavor to prove, throughout the whole work. And thou, in accusing them of disagreement, art doing just the same as if thou were to insist upon their using the same words and forms of speech” (1.8), though it is not clear to me whether he intends to extend that to the apparent discrepancies of place and time that he mentioned above. Another significant point is that he only says that there discord “seems to exist in little matters.”

To establish definitively that he intends that there are errors in the Gospels, it would be incumbent on someone with a greater familiarity of Chrysostom’s commentaries than me to show some place where he points out a discrepancy in “little matters” and excludes any possibility of reconciliation. Otherwise, I would be inclined from what I have read that he believed that such discrepancies are only apparent and not actual. Your example of the angels at the tomb is a great example. The presence of two angels does not exclude the presence of one because each angel is only one angel considered by himself. But even if he would admit true discrepancies in “little matters,” I don’t think he would concerning the date of our Lord’s Passion because it is such a significant event.

The Bible is infallible but not inerrent. There is a difference. The Bible is about God and our relationship with God. If it contains historical or scientific errors, that does not detract from the divine message or authority of the Holy Scriptures.
The fundamentalists have actually accepted the post-Enlightenment presuppositions of the liberals they oppose, because they also argue that its message is compromised if the Holy Scriptures contain any scientific or historical errors. The books of the Bible have authority not because they can be proven to be historically accurate, but because the Holy Spirit led the Church to recognize them as divinely inspired expressions of the Faith that it learned from Christ and His Apostles. Thus the Bible derives its authority from the Church.

Fr. John

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

So is God incapable of using unleavened bread if everyone believes it’s been changed and the proper steps are taken by the Priest?

I don’t think God is incapable of anything, but I also think people can believe something’s been changed that hasn’t been.

I think you’re asking my opinion about whether or not an unleavened bread (used by some Catholics, like all the Latin Church & the Maronite Church & maybe other Catholics for their Eucharistic Celebration) could actually be the Body and Blood of Christ?

If that is your question, I have to say I’m not 100% certain either way. God has the capability to do anything He wants to do yet people do have the ability to believe (to feel 100% certain) about something that is just not true.

It’s interesting to me that the Eucharistic Miracles I’ve heard about in the Catholic Church happened BEFORE the Catholic Church began using unleavened bread - like the Eucharistic Miracle in Lanciano, Italy around the year 700 ad. BUT that being mentioned, Should miracles make or break our Faith? I think not, as there have been miracles in other religions, like in 1995 where in Hindu Temples all over India statues of Ganesha drink milk and the other miracle where a live Bull that produced milk which healed Hindus.

My question: Is it safer to error on the side that unleavened bread can NOT be turned into the Holy Eucharist so as avoid worship something that is potentially not God (avoid a potential sin of idolatry)? OR is it safer to error on the side that unleavened bread CAN be turned into the Holy Eucharist is so as not to deny God (avoid a potential sin against the Holy Spirit)? I’m leaning towards the latter.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If he got one part so wrong, why would anyone trust the rest of it?

Without knowing what is his source to assert the western use of unleavened bread in the 300s, I don’t know if it’s wrong. And based on my prior post regarding this, historians seem to admit to this to varying degrees.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thank you, Isaiah. I and a number of other Catholics (Eastern and Western) have been taking issue with the Catholic Encyclopedia for quite some time now … but not because of its “Catholicity”.

Now back to regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I don’t think God is incapable of anything, but I also think people can believe something’s been changed that hasn’t been.

I think you’re asking my opinion about whether or not an unleavened bread (used by some Catholics, like all the Latin Church & the Maronite Church & maybe other Catholics for their Eucharistic Celebration) could actually be the Body and Blood of Christ?

If that is your question, I have to say I’m not 100% certain either way. God has the capability to do anything He wants to do yet people do have the ability to believe (to feel 100% certain) about something that is just not true.

My question: Is it safer to error on the side that unleavened bread can NOT be turned into the Holy Eucharist so as avoid worship something that is potentially not God (avoid a potential sin of idolatry) OR is it safer to error on the side that unleavened bread CAN be turned into the Holy Eucharist is so as not to deny God (avoid a potential sin against the Holy Spirit)? I’m leaning towards the latter.

Since the Catholic Church uses unleavened bread in its Latin Rite, and leavened bread in the various Eastern Rites, the Catholic Church obviously teaches that both leavened and unleavened bread can become the Sacred Body of Christ. I personally am inclined to agree and do not think that many contemporary Orthodox theologians would make an issue of the matter. However, I personally favor our way because it is the most ancient. Even the ancient Church of Rome originally used leavened bread for the Eucharist. However, I do not think that it is worth an argument. I suspect that with further research, I would find that it became an issue because Latin missionaries in Bulgaria made it into an issue. Most of the arguments over such matters stem from the argument over whether Bulgaria would follow Eastern or Western practices. The Khan or leader of the Bulgars played off the East against the West to get the best deal and as much local control as he could get for the Bulgarian Church. Bulgaria eventually went Eastern, because of our conciliar method of administration instead of accepting papal control. It is important to put these things in their historical context. At this time in history the Clunic Reform was placing emphasis on Roman authority over the Church in reaction to the efforts of local rulers to control the Church in the territory under their control. Cluny favored an international Church led by the Pope over locally controlled Churches that could be overly influenced by the local rulers. Cluny also emphasized celibacy, which played a major role in its conflict with the Eastern Church with its married clergy. Obviously as a married Priest, my personal prejudices are against mandatory celibacy.

Fr. John

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I always consult legitimate historians and historical documents, not Eastern Orthodox polemics. New Advent presents a very biased account of church history built on the foundation of Roman Catholic doctrine.

This is your professional opinion and I respect it. I don’t know enough to share your opinion on New Advent and being a Catholic, I will tend to agree with most of what they present until I learn differently. That is my bias.

I do not claim not to have a bias, but still try to rely on credible sources. I looked at several works by recognized church historians this morning before I wrote my response to the quote from New Advent. Most reports are rather sketchy, except for Runciman who gives the most details.

Thank you for your honesty. And I was able to get Runciman’s 3-Volumes on the Crusades, used for under $25

 

[Randy_Carson]

From MarcoPolo’s blog:

Metropolitan Ware begins with a reference to The Ravenna Statement, a 2007 joint document between officials of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches regarding the primacy of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome:

In the Ravenna Statement it is stated unambiguously, “The fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West.” And that statement was endorsed by all the delegates, the Orthodox as well as the Catholics. … Now, this statement stressing the existence of universal primacy is the first time, at any rate in recent history, that the Orthodox Church at a high official level, has affirmed in principle, the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. … But the question then arises, what kind of universal primacy is meant? How is it to be interpreted?

We begin with this common point: the Bishop of Rome exercises a “universal primacy.” Both the “East” (Orthodox) and “West” (Catholics) hold to this basic statement. The extent of what that means remains in negotiation. Metropolitan Ware nevertheless believes The Ravenna Statement is a crucial document in reconciling the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the papacy because it cites an ancient canon especially revered by the Orthodox:

[T]he statement of Ravenna offers us a precious guideline. It appeals to the 34th apostolic canon. Now, I don’t think the apostolic canons, which are 4th century in date, are particularly well known in the western canonical tradition. But for the Christian East, the apostolic canons have always been held in very high regard, especially the 34th apostolic canon, which is seen as the touchstone for primacy. … Now, the canon says, “The bishops of each province must recognize the one who is first––” protos is the Greek word “––the one who is first among them, and consider him to be their head. And they must not do anything important without his consent. But the first, the protos, cannot do anything without the consent of all.”

In other words, Metropolitan Ware believes reconcilement on the papacy can be achieved if this mutual dependence of sorts, as articulated in Apostolic Canon 34, be harmonious with any view of papal primacy.​

Source: thecatholicvoyager.blogspot.com/

 

[frjohnmorris]

I have tried to respond to this question a number of times but keep getting called away, and I’m now too tired to think clearly (its almost midnight here). If you don’t mind, I’ll post a link to an article on a site dedicated to baking prosphoro for the celebration of the Eucharist. I might add some more information as I find the time in the next day or so.

Leavened versus Unleavened Bread - What’s the difference?

I do not know when bread makers first realized that it was yeast that caused the dough to rise. But, I do know about the history of beer, because I am a home brewer. Brewers did not know about yeast. They kept back part of the old brew which unknown to them contained yeast and added it to the next batch. They called whatever caused the wort, unfermented beer, to ferment, “Gott ist gut,” which means God is good. Finally, Pasteur first identified yeast as the cause of fermentation. This took place in about 1870. I also believe that yeast is considered a form of fungus, not a plant. There is actually wild yeast in the air. However, only a few breweries in Belgium use wild yeast, the others now use specialty yeasts to produce the kind of beer that they want.

Fr. John

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Modern Orthodox really do not make an issue of these things. I once mentioned the canon that forbade kneeling on Sunday. It was meant to be tongue in cheek. I frankly agree that all the debate about what kind of bread to use for the Eucharist was rather petty. That is not really what divides us, anyway. What really divides us is the whole question of papal authority. The other issues are secondary and can be worked out through a little tolerance for different usage on both sides. However, it is true that many modern liturgical historians argue that the Eucharist was not instituted at the Passover, but rather during a Jewish fellowship meal ro Berarakoth. Read Louis Bouyers’ book Eucharist for a discussion of this issue. The book is written by a Roman Catholic and has the Imprimatur showing that it does not violate Catholic doctrine.

I am not arguing that leaven is so important to either. When was the last time that Catholics have ever disparaged the Eastern custom of leavened bread? Both unleavened bread and leavened bread have beautiful symbolisms. I also retract my statement from earlier about the use of leaven in Scripture being negative. Prodromos’s link mentioned a New Testament verse where leaven is likened to the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 13:33). It also mentioned the use of leavened cakes in the offering of First Fruits (Lev. 23:17).

However, for the question of what kind of bread used at the Last Supper, I believe that it was almost certainly unleavened. Regardless of the type of meal at which the Eucharist was instituted, if the meal occurred on the evening of the Passover, then the bread would have to be unleavened regardless of the immediate context because there wouldn’t be a leavened bread to celebrate with. If I remember correctly, Cornelius a Lapide says that the disciples celebrated the Passover and then celebrated a second meal immediately afterwards in which the Eucharist was instituted. The connection of the Last Supper with the date of the Passover is also confirmed by the tradition of the early Asian Church, which always celebrated Easter on Nisan 14. Polycrates of Ephesus said, “For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven” (Eusebius 5.24.6). Since St. John was bishop of Ephesus, it would be strange to imagine that his successor would be the one to hold fast to the tradition of a Easter celebration on Passover if his Gospel did not put the Last Supper during Passover. Then, of course, there is always the fact that Easter and Passover are the same word in Greek.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The Bible is infallible but not inerrent. There is a difference. The Bible is about God and our relationship with God. If it contains historical or scientific errors, that does not detract from the divine message or authority of the Holy Scriptures.
The fundamentalists have actually accepted the post-Enlightenment presuppositions of the liberals they oppose, because they also argue that its message is compromised if the Holy Scriptures contain any scientific or historical errors. The books of the Bible have authority not because they can be proven to be historically accurate, but because the Holy Spirit led the Church to recognize them as divinely inspired expressions of the Faith that it learned from Christ and His Apostles. Thus the Bible derives its authority from the Church.

I would agree with you that the Holy Scriptures could contain historical and scientific errors if I did not believe that the Scriptures are inspired in all their parts. St. Gregory Nazianzen (to name one example) seems to agree on this point:

We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, we never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them, and have thus been borne in mind down to the present day: on the contrary, their purpose has been to supply memorials and instructions for our consideration under similar circumstances, should such befall us, and that the examples of the past might serve as rules and models, for our warning and imitation. (Oration II.105)

By this, I don’t mean that words ought to be considered inerrant in isolation apart from their context and intended meaning. For example, when Christ says that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds and that the mustard plant is the tallest of plants (Mt. 13:32), he is not intending to teach a biology lesson. It is obvious that he is speaking in hyperbolic terms. That should not be taken as an error any more than it is an error when someone says they will be ready in a couple of minutes and ends up being ready after three minutes. The Catholic doctrine of inerrancy does not deny that there are figures of speech in the Bible.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I don’t think God is incapable of anything, but I also think people can believe something’s been changed that hasn’t been.

I think you’re asking my opinion about whether or not an unleavened bread (used by some Catholics, like all the Latin Church & the Maronite Church & maybe other Catholics for their Eucharistic Celebration) could actually be the Body and Blood of Christ?

If that is your question, I have to say I’m not 100% certain either way. God has the capability to do anything He wants to do yet people do have the ability to believe (to feel 100% certain) about something that is just not true.

It’s interesting to me that the Eucharistic Miracles I’ve heard about in the Catholic Church happened BEFORE the Catholic Church began using unleavened bread - like the Eucharistic Miracle in Lanciano, Italy around the year 700 ad. BUT that being mentioned, Should miracles make or break our Faith? I think not, as there have been miracles in other religions, like in 1995 where in Hindu Temples all over India statues of Ganesha drink milk and the other miracle where a live Bull that produced milk which healed Hindus.

My question: Is it safer to error on the side that unleavened bread can NOT be turned into the Holy Eucharist so as avoid worship something that is potentially not God (avoid a potential sin of idolatry)? OR is it safer to error on the side that unleavened bread CAN be turned into the Holy Eucharist is so as not to deny God (avoid a potential sin against the Holy Spirit)? I’m leaning towards the latter.

Actually, the story of Lanciano is that it occurred while an Eastern priest was celebrating the mass in the Latin rite with unleavened bread. Supposedly, he doubted interiorly whether the “transubstantiation” actually took place since the bread was unleavened. The miracle was given as a sign for him that he should not worry about the presence or absence of leaven. Pretty much all the eucharistic mirales I have heard of took place after unleavened bread became the norm.
www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

I think there is a misconception present in this thread that the Latin Church had only used leavened bread up until some point in the Middle Ages where the use of unleavened bread was arbitrarily imposed for the first time. What actually happened was the use of unleavened bread was not made normative and universal until that time. In all likelihood, the reason the Eucharist was celebrated with leavened bread so widely was because that was the common bread and the presence or absence of leaven did not matter, not because Christ mandated that leavened bread be used. If St. Paul used leavened bread in his liturgy, he ought to have said, “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the new leaven of sincerity and truth,” rather than saying to keep the feast with the “unleavened bread” of sincerity and truth. St. Paul of all people wouldn’t insert any ammunition for Judaizers on this point if he exclusively used leavened bread in the Eucharist.

 

[frjohnmorris]

From MarcoPolo’s blog:

Metropolitan Ware begins with a reference to The Ravenna Statement, a 2007 joint document between officials of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches regarding the primacy of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome:

In the Ravenna Statement it is stated unambiguously, “The fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West.” And that statement was endorsed by all the delegates, the Orthodox as well as the Catholics. … Now, this statement stressing the existence of universal primacy is the first time, at any rate in recent history, that the Orthodox Church at a high official level, has affirmed in principle, the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. … But the question then arises, what kind of universal primacy is meant? How is it to be interpreted?

We begin with this common point: the Bishop of Rome exercises a “universal primacy.” Both the “East” (Orthodox) and “West” (Catholics) hold to this basic statement. The extent of what that means remains in negotiation. Metropolitan Ware nevertheless believes The Ravenna Statement is a crucial document in reconciling the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the papacy because it cites an ancient canon especially revered by the Orthodox:

[T]he statement of Ravenna offers us a precious guideline. It appeals to the 34th apostolic canon. Now, I don’t think the apostolic canons, which are 4th century in date, are particularly well known in the western canonical tradition. But for the Christian East, the apostolic canons have always been held in very high regard, especially the 34th apostolic canon, which is seen as the touchstone for primacy. … Now, the canon says, “The bishops of each province must recognize the one who is first––” protos is the Greek word “––the one who is first among them, and consider him to be their head. And they must not do anything important without his consent. But the first, the protos, cannot do anything without the consent of all.”

In other words, Metropolitan Ware believes reconcilement on the papacy can be achieved if this mutual dependence of sorts, as articulated in Apostolic Canon 34, be harmonious with any view of papal primacy.​

Source: thecatholicvoyager.blogspot.com/

The Eastern Church never denied that the Bishop or Rome was the senior Bishop of the Church or that he held a primacy of honor. Where we differ is on what that means. There is a difference between being senior Bishop of the Church and having universal jurisdiction. Today in the Eastern Orthodox Church, we recognize Constantinople as senior Bishop of our Church. However, the Ecumenical Patriarch has no authority to unilaterally issue doctrinal decrees or the authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the autocephalous Churches. Instead, he acts as a facilitator, by bringing together the leaders of the autocephalous Churches or their representatives to discuss matters of common concern. I do not think that any serious historian can legitimately reconcile the practices of the ancient Church and the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils which provide for local self-rule and conciliarism with the 1st Vatican Council or the centralization of power in the hands of the Pope as is the case in the modern Catholic Church.

Fr.John

 

[SoMissCatholic]

You are correct that historical accounts more often than not disagree on facts. However, no honest historian sets out to create a history that deliberately contains error. If the Gospel accounts are historical and they have God as their author, then it follows that they cannot err in basic facts. If an honest historian had a choice to either insert a statement he knew to be factual or a statement statement he knew to be false, he would never choose the false statement. Why, then, would God ever put a false statement in a historical account when he knows the correct statement? The Scriptures were penned by human authors who could err by themselves, but they have God, who cannot err, for their primary author, which is why Peter says, Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

When I said I would side with the Synoptics if the Gospels disagreed on the date of the Last Supper, I was not saying I believed that they disagreed or that they could disagree, but I was making a concession for the sake of an argument. The argument put forward by certain Orthodox polemicists is that leavened bread is the only valid matter for the Eucharist because Christ used leavened bread, the Last Supper being before the Passover. However, the only Gospel account which even seems to justify moving the Last Supper to before Passover is John’s Gospel. But, as Fr. Morris said, John’s Gospel draws much more heavily on the symbolism of the lamb, so John would have more reason to move the actual dates (to draw out symbolism), whereas the Synoptic writers do not have any special reason to move the Crucifixion to after the slaughtering of the lambs Christ actually was crucified with the lambs. That is why I said that if the Gospels disagreed (which they don’t), I would side with the Synoptics, since they don’t have any reason to deviate from the factual dates whereas John conceivably might.

In fact, the Gospels do not disagree on the date of the Last Supper. It almost without doubt occurred the evening of Nisan 15, the same night that the Passover meal was eaten. All three Synoptics agree on this point. Moreover, one of the Evangelists was the Apostle Matthew, who would not have forgotten the date of the Last Supper and Crucifixion. If you say that Matthew is wrong on this point, I don’t see how this is anything other than a denial of Matthean authorship. The Eastern Orthodox deny that there is any development of doctrine and they believe the same traditions that have been handed down from the Apostles. The unanimous tradition of the Church is that Matthew authored the Gospel bearing his name so it is not clear how it is possible to believe so strongly in the authority and stability of Tradition if the Fathers all erred on this point. For that reason, I would be inclined to take Matthew at his word. John also was an Apostle, but his Gospel can be easily read in a way that does not deny the Synoptic chronology. The solutions are not difficult ones.

The Last Supper most certainly was a Passover seder meal. Here is an article by Jimmy Akin discussing the supposed “discrepancies” in St. John’s Gospel. Of particular note are the following quotes from the article:

when one looks at the structure of the meal — when they ate, when they drank, when they prayed, when they sang a hymn -it is very clear that they were following a Passover seder.

(Continued Below)

 

[SoMissCatholic]

(Continued from previous post)

“The Passover” could refer to at least four things: (1) it could refer to the two chagigah lambs which were slaughtered and eaten, one on the evening of 15 Nisan, during the Passover seder, and one on the following day of 15 Nisan (Jews at the time reckoned the day as beginning at sundown, so the evening of the day preceded the morning of the day), (2) it could refer to the Passover meal itself, (3) it could refer to the day on which the Passover meal was eaten, and (4) it could refer to the eight day festal cycle including both Passover day and the following seven day feast of Unleavened Bread. We see this latter usage in the gospels themselves. Luke 22:1 tells us: “Now the feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover.”

It is this usage which is relevant in John 19:14. Thus “the day of Preparation of the Passover” means “the Friday of Passover week.” Thus the New International Version renders John 19:14, “It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week …”

Regarding John 18:28, if the term “Passover” is again taken as a reference to the whole festal cycle, then the Jewish leaders’ fear that they would not be able to “eat the Passover” could be a reference to being unable to participate in the continuing festivities of that day. However, there is a more probable alternative. As we noted, there were two lambs, known as chagigah, which were killed and eaten. The first lamb was killed on the afternoon of 14 Nisan and eaten that night (15 Nisan) as the lamb of the Passover seder. However, the second lamb was eaten during the day of 15 Nisan and, like the first one, was also called a Passover. Thus the leaders were afraid they would not be able to eat the second Passover — the lamb eaten during the day of the 15th.

We can be certain, however, that the Jewish leaders were not afraid that they would be unable to eat the Passover seder proper because the defilement caused by entering a Gentile’s dwelling required a ritual bath and then ceased at sundown. Since the Passover seder was held after sundown, the leaders would have been able to eat it with no problem if this were occurring on the 14th of Nisan. However, if it were occurring during the daytime on the 15th of Nisan, they would not have been able to eat the second Passover, the second chagigah because they would be unclean until the evening of that day, and it was eaten during the daytime.

(Bold emphasis added)

In any event, it is clear from what John writes that he too understood the Last Supper to be a Passover meal. In John 13:27-30, we read:

“As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. ‘What you are about to do, do quickly,’ Jesus told him, but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.” (NIV)

This would make no sense if it were not a Passover meal. One normally would not go out into the streets to give money to the poor on an ordinary night. However, on Passover night the doors of the Temple were opened at midnight (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18:29f) and a crowd of poor people gathered to receive alms. Thus it was a custom to give alms to the poor at night on Passover, but night time alms were in no way customary at other times, meaning Jesus’s direction to Judas would not have been so understood by the apostles if it were given at any time other than Passover evening. The fact that the apostles had this in mind is reinforced by the fact that the other explanation they thought of — that Judas was being sent out to buy something for the Feast — is also focused on special customs connected with the Passover (/Unleavened Bread) feast.

Thus John also understands the meal to be a Passover seder. Confusion suggesting otherwise is simply due to lack of understanding of the Jewish customs and terms of the time.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Regarding papal primacy/authority in the early church, the following is a quote from the article linked in my signature line:

Fiction 3

The papacy is a medieval Roman invention. The early Church knew nothing of a “supreme pontiff.” Other bishops didn’t regard the bishop of Rome as having special authority to operate the way modern popes do.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, “It is easy to find truth; it is hard to face it, and harder still to follow it.” This is certainly true for some when it comes to facing the historical evidence for the papacy in the early Church. The hard-core purveyors of pope fiction refuse to believe that the papacy was established by Christ. But if the equivalent of the modern a Roman invention of the eighth or ninth century, how do we explain the fact that for the preceding 700 years, the bishops of Rome were regarded (and regarded themselves) as having a special, unique authority and responsibility for the whole Church? Here are a few of the hundreds of examples that could be given.

The earliest account we have of a bishop of Rome exercising authority in another diocese comes from St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians. It was written by Clement, bishop of Rome, around the year A.D. 80. In it he responds to the Corinthians’ plea for his intervention. The entire letter is written in a fatherly, kind way but it, is also clear that Clement was quite aware he had a special authority. Two key phrases stand our as testimony of this: “But if any disobey the words spoken by Him [Christ] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in sin and no small danger”; and “For you will give us joy and gladness if, obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you root out the lawless anger of your jealousy” (59, 63). Clearly, this early bishop of Rome wrote as one who expected his words to be obeyed.

Pope Victor I (reigned 189-199) worked to settle a dispute among the bishops of the East and West over when to celebrate Easter - known as the Quartodeciman controversy. The other bishops recognized his unique authority when they followed his directive to convene local and regional synods to deliberate on the issue. Most of the bishops decided to adopt his proposal that the whole Church celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after Passover. Those who didn’t, he threatened with excommunication. The fact that no bishop in the world – not a single one – disputed his authority as bishop of Rome to carry out such an excommunication is a powerful piece of evidence that the early Church recognized the unique authority of the bishop of Rome.

Shortly before his death in A.D. 200, St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote to Pope Victor asking him to relent and allow the Eastern bishops to maintain their celebration of Easter according to the Hebrew lunar calendar, evidence that he recognized the pope’s authority to threaten excommunication. Pope Victor did not in fact relent, but it’s important to note that St. Irenaeus, like most of the bishops, submitted to the pope’s ruling. After all, it was Irenaeus who wrote of the Church at Rome: “For with this church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree; that is, all the faithful in the whole world, for in her the apostolic tradition has always been preserved for the benefit of the faithful everywhere” (Against Heresies 3:3).

Around the year 220, Pope Callistus wrote, “Callistus, archbishop of the Church Catholic in the city of Rome, to Benedictus, our brother and bishop, greetings in the Lord. By the love of the brotherhood we are bound, and by our apostolic rule we are constrained, to give answer to the inquiries of the brethren, according to what the Lord has given us, and to furnish them with the authority of the seal of the apostles” (First Epistle 1). Clearly he was well aware of his special role and authority in settling problems in the Church, even in other dioceses.

Later, the same pope wrote a letter to all the bishops of Gaul, saying, “Callistus to our most dearly beloved brethren, all the bishops settled throughout Gaul … We beg you not to permit anything to be done in those parts contrary to the apostolic statutes; but, supported by our authority, you should stop what is injurious, and prohibit what is unlawful…. Observe this law, which has been laid down by the apostles and fathers, and our predecessors, and has been ratified by us … We have replied to your interrogations shortly, because your letter found us burdened overmuch, and preoccupied with other judgments” (Second Epistle, To All the Bishops of Gaul 2, 6).

In the year 382, Pope Damasus wrote about his authority as bishop of Rome, anchoring it to the fact that he was the successor of St. Peter, He said the Church at Rome "has been placed at the forefront, not by the conciliar decision of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelistic voice of our Lord and Savior Who says, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ . . . The first See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish" (Decree of Pope Damasus 2-3).

(CONTINUED BELOW)

 

[SoMissCatholic]

(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST)

In A.D, 404, St. John Chrysostom wrote to Pope Innocent, “I beseech your Charity to rouse yourself and have compassion, and do everything so as to put a stop to the mischief at this point” (First Epistle to Pope Innocent 1). Note that Chrysostom, the archbishop of Constantinople, a powerful diocese, recognized the need to appeal to the bishop of Rome to resolve a controversy.

Many other examples of the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the early Church could be added. Even from the earliest years, the bishop of Rome had - and everyone recognized that he had - a special authority in the Church. Those who say the papacy is a “medieval Roman invention,” are either ignorant of history or dishonest.

(All bold emphasis added)

 

[frjohnmorris]

(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST)

(All bold emphasis added)

One can prove almost anything taking quotes out of their proper context as these quotes show. One must look at the whole picture of the administration of the ancient Church to properly understand it. Rome had a primacy of honor, and could make suggestions, but had no authority or ability to enforce its will on the other local Churches. As the senior Bishop, Rome had great influence. For that reason, it was only natural that anyone involved in a controversy would seek Roman support. However, it was the Ecumenical Councils that actually made the decisions on all doctrinal or administrative controversies, not Rome. It is also clear from reading the canons, and accounts of the discussions during their meetings, that the Ecumenical Councils operated with the assumption that the Bishop of Rome like all other Bishops must obey their decisions. The canons of the Ecumenical Councils establish local self-rule and give Rome no special authority over the other Patriarchs other than a primacy of honor. All Bishops were elected by regional synods and required no ratification from Rome before their consecration. All regional matters were resolved by the local Patriarch and his Holy Synod. At Chalcedon, the Church ruled that the Patriarch of Constantinople not Rome act as the final court of appeal for clergy.
If the ancient Church had really believed in Roman supremacy, 4 of the 5 ancient Patriarchates would not have rejected the Pope’s efforts to expand his power over the East in the 11th century.

Fr. John

 

[SoMissCatholic]

One can prove almost anything taking quotes out of their proper context as these quotes show. One must look at the whole picture of the administration of the ancient Church to properly understand it. Rome had a primacy of honor, and could make suggestions, but had no authority or ability to enforce its will on the other local Churches. As the senior Bishop, Rome had great influence. For that reason, it was only natural that anyone involved in a controversy would seek Roman support. However, it was the Ecumenical Councils that actually made the decisions on all doctrinal or administrative controversies, not Rome. It is also clear from reading the canons, and accounts of the discussions during their meetings, that the Ecumenical Councils operated with the assumption that the Bishop of Rome like all other Bishops must obey their decisions. The canons of the Ecumenical Councils establish local self-rule and give Rome no special authority over the other Patriarchs other than a primacy of honor. All Bishops were elected by regional synods and required no ratification from Rome before their consecration. All regional matters were resolved by the local Patriarch and his Holy Synod. At Chalcedon, the Church ruled that the Patriarch of Constantinople not Rome act as the final court of appeal for clergy.
If the ancient Church had really believed in Roman supremacy, 4 of the 5 ancient Patriarchates would not have rejected the Pope’s efforts to expand his power over the East in the 11th century.

Fr. John

I honestly don’t know the historical record well enough to comment one way or the other. That is why I simply provided a quote from someone more learned than me. However, I do know enough about logic to state that your last sentence is fallacious. It does not logically follow that because 4 of the 5 patriarchates ultimately rejected the universal jurisdiction of the pope in the 11th century that the early church did not believe in such universal jurisdiction at any point in the previous thousand years leading up to the Great Schism. That would be akin to me saying “if Eastern Orthodoxy had really preserved the true ancient faith, then Catholics would not outnumber Eastern Orthodox almost 6 to 1.”