Catholic vs. Orthodox who's right, who was first and why?

[searn77]

Just to put my two cents in on the issue of the primacy of the Pope, my view on this topic is that “Peter was the leader among the apostles” rather than “Peter was the leader of the apostles.” It’s more complex than just saying he either was the head of the apostles or he wasn’t. There’s many different types of leaderships like Monarchs, Presidents, CEOs, etc. To say he was head of the apostles can mean many different things. I tend to view the headship of Rome like a CEO. The Pope represented the Church but if he ceased to represent the Church, he would cease to be the CEO. Again this is my belief and I guess Catholics would disagree with it but I just felt like airing my belief.

What’s the point in being a head, if it’s only in respect to honour? In Sacred scripture, we see that Saint Peter was/is (through his successors) given an authority over the Church (always take in mind that he needs the body of bishops, as a head without a body is no less functional than a body without a head) that is more pronounced than the other apostles.

Again, just my two cents, I believe that St. Peter was given authority “among/within the Church” rather than “over the church.”

Also, for a great great great understanding of the past, present, and future relations among the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox, I would highly recommend listening to the December 10, 2008 episode of the Illumined Heart podcast. Here’s a brief synopsis of the episode that I found on the website the-illumined-heart.com

“In today’s program Kevin and his guest, St Vladimir’s Theological Seminary professor, historian, and author Fr John Erickson, discuss the near 1500-year rift between the Oriental Orthodox (Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Indian) and Eastern Orthodox churches. They will discuss the theology, history, politics, attempts at reunion and the current state of affairs between these two ancient eastern Christian churches”

I think I heard that Fr. John Erickson is Oriental Orthodox but I can’t recall. He does a great job in the interview though. It’s about 40 minutes long and he talks about the different views on the ecumenical counsels and how many Eastern Orthodox tend to use the Catholic view of infallibility when talking about the counsels but he explains it differently. If I could sum it up and write down the basics of what he said I would but I can’t for various reasons. Again I would highly recommend listening to this if you have a chance

 

[Hesychios]

Your view, the Orthodox view, is clearly contradicted by the eastern patriarchs I quoted, among others. The views of the Orthodox Church were influenced by the politics of the split, not by the teachings of their patriarchs.

Primacy doth not Supremacy make.

 

[Hesychios]

What’s the point in being a head, if it’s only in respect to honour? In Sacred scripture, we see that Saint Peter was/is (through his successors) given an authority over the Church (always take in mind that he needs the body of bishops, as a head without a body is no less functional than a body without a head) that is more pronounced than the other apostles.

Your post seems contradictory.

Try to think of the Primus Inter Pares as a chairperson of a committee of equals (like board members or trustees of a venerable institution). That is how it is handled, the most respected primate (primacy is functional throughout the church at every level) is invited to chair a meeting to work out solutions to a vexing problem (as most recently in the case of the Patriarch of Jerusalem being deposed by his own synod a few years ago).

As I have stated elsewhere, the sometimes EP performs this role (if the case is sufficiently grave, and a prestigious outsider is the best choice for a mediator). It is a labor of love. If we were to reconcile, the Orthodox Catholics might be persueded to allow the bishop of Rome to take over these honors (once in a while), then again perhaps not. :shrug

 

[John_Larocque]

Never mind, it seems Carthage was autocephalous… which would make Cyprian WAS Pope Stephen’s equal after all, thus, autocephaly would nullify any claim to jurisdiction under Rome.

orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_autocephalous_and_autonomous_churches

Formerly independent churches

These churches were formerly autocephalous or autonomous, no longer Orthodox, or in some cases no longer exist.

* Church of Carthage
* Church of Latvia
* Church of Lithuania
* Church of Rome (See Great Schism)

And yet…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_response_trthodox_Church_in_America_autocephaly

Autocephaly has been proclaimed multiple times, but always failed without the assent of the whole Church. (The Churches of Carthage, Mediolana (Milan), the First Justiniana, Ochrid, Trnovo, Ipek, and Iberia are all given as examples by Patr. Athenagoras on p. 37.)

 

[VARC]

Your post seems contradictory.

Try to think of the Primus Inter Pares as a chairperson of a committee of equals (like board members or trustees of a venerable institution). That is how it is handled, the most respected primate (primacy is functional throughout the church at every level) is invited to chair a meeting to work out solutions to a vexing problem (as most recently in the case of the Patriarch of Jerusalem being deposed by his own synod a few years ago).

As I have stated elsewhere, the sometimes EP performs this role (if the case is sufficiently grave, and a prestigious outsider is the best choice for a mediator). It is a labor of love. If we were to reconcile, the Orthodox Catholics might be persueded to allow the bishop of Rome to take over these honors (once in a while), then again perhaps not. :shrug

I came up with my own analogy and I’ll try it on you. Peter was the leader of the apostles in a co-operative way not in an authoratative way. The coach is the authoratative leader (the boss) of a football team. The Pope is not like a coach but more like the team’s quarterback. The quaterback is undoubtly the leader of the team on the field but he is not the boss of the tackle or the wide reciever. He treats his fellow players with respect while working with them as a leader to accomplish the objective of winning the game.

I view the Pope of Rome the same way but they historically have been terrible leaders of Christendom by alienating themselves from the rest the Church. It’s like an arrogant, self-centered quarterback who disses his team mates. He’s still the leader but the team suffers because his poor leadership.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I came up with my own analogy and I’ll try it on you. Peter was the leader of the apostles in a co-operative way not in an authoratative way. The coach is the authoratative leader (the boss) of a football team. The Pope is not like a coach but more like the team’s quarterback. The quaterback is undoubtly the leader of the team on the field but he is not the boss of the tackle or the wide reciever. He treats his fellow players with respect while working with them as a leader to accomplish the objective of winning the game.

I view the Pope of Rome the same way but they historically have been terrible leaders of Christendom by alienating themselves from the rest the Church. It’s like an arrogant, self-centered quarterback who disses his team mates. He’s still the leader but the team suffers because his poor leadership.

So in a way the Medievel popes were like Terrell Owens?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I came up with my own analogy and I’ll try it on you. Peter was the leader of the apostles in a co-operative way not in an authoratative way. The coach is the authoratative leader (the boss) of a football team. .

Imagine a football team where the quarterback calls the play, then each player decides which play to run.

That’s protestantism.

Jesus gave us a quarterback.

I like your analogy!

 

[Hesychios]

Where the bishop is, the church is

 

[Hesychios]

I came up with my own analogy and I’ll try it on you.

I dislike analogies, even my own.

…because his poor leadership.

Undeserved leadership.

The bishop or Roma’s authority as Metropolitan of central Italy is without question, and the Apostolic origin of the church in the city of Roma adds a great deal of prestige to the whole diocese established at Roma. The line of bishops of the city of Roma capitalized upon the diocese’s prestige to aggrandize their own power beyond their own Metropolitan synod.

They have tried to be the bishops of the bishops… the Metropolitans of the world, monopolizing the functions of the other bishops around the world and suppressing the independence of the local synods such as Gaul, Spain and North Africa. It was never meant to be that way, so it should be no surprise that the office was handled so poorly for so many centuries.

 

[Eucharisted]

Where the bishop is, the church is

Funny you should mention that…

For it is with this Roman church, by reason of its more powerful pre-eminence, that every church, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree. - St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lychos 180 AD

Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. - St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage 251 AD

There are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house. - St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo 397 AD

If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. - St. Augustine, 412 AD

Recommended Reading:
History of Apostolic Succession

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

The bishop or Roma’s authority as Metropolitan of central Italy is without question, and the Apostolic origin of the church in the city of Roma adds a great deal of prestige to the whole diocese established at Roma. The line of bishops of the city of Roma capitalized upon the diocese’s prestige to aggrandize their own power beyond their own Metropolitan synod.

Prestige has nothing to do with it.

…monopolizing the functions of the other bishops around the world

When has a Pope ever done this?

and suppressing the independence of the local synods such as Gaul, Spain and North Africa. It was never meant to be that way, so it should be no surprise that the office was handled so poorly for so many centuries.

St. Cyprian from whom the EO and Anglicans claim their so-called “Cyprianic ecclesiology” had called on the bishop of Rome to correct and discipline bishops in Gaul and Spain. North Africa has never been independent of Rome - EVER.

EO apologists often insist that Latin Catholic apologists should not impose their particular ecclesiological model on the EO in order to understand the EO. I ask that you do the same in order to gain a better appreciation of the papacy. In fact, this idea of independent (i.e., autocephalous) national hierarchies is peculiar to the EO. Though it may be considered a legitimate development, it was unknown in the early Church. I don’t think it is right for you to complain about the autonomous model of the Catholic Church, which is certainly patristic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Arandur]

I dislike analogies, even my own.
Undeserved leadership.

The bishop or Roma’s authority as Metropolitan of central Italy is without question, and the Apostolic origin of the church in the city of Roma adds a great deal of prestige to the whole diocese established at Roma. The line of bishops of the city of Roma capitalized upon the diocese’s prestige to aggrandize their own power beyond their own Metropolitan synod.

They have tried to be the bishops of the bishops… the Metropolitans of the world, monopolizing the functions of the other bishops around the world and suppressing the independence of the local synods such as Gaul, Spain and North Africa. It was never meant to be that way, so it should be no surprise that the office was handled so poorly for so many centuries.

By the same logic that you accept “autocephalus” Sees or Metropolitans, as in one bishop having authority over other bishops in a region, you also, by extension, justify and indeed require for unity a bishop with some measure of authority over ALL the others. Otherwise, we have numerous separate churches, not One Church.

Do you not think it is a sign that all the Sees but Rome fell? That the only See remaining intact throughout history rightfully finds a greater leadership role even over the former territories of the other Sees?

 

[Harpazo]

By the same logic that you accept “autocephalus” Sees or Metropolitans, as in one bishop having authority over other bishops in a region, you also, by extension, justify and indeed require for unity a bishop with some measure of authority over ALL the others. Otherwise, we have numerous separate churches, not One Church.

Do you not think it is a sign that all the Sees but Rome fell? That the only See remaining intact throughout history rightfully finds a greater leadership role even over the former territories of the other Sees?

In Orthodoxy, unity is by basis of the same faith and Eucharistic communion, not administrative. That is why we do not have a pope and have autocephalous churches. The early Church attests to this as well.

I am a little confused by the second paragraph. Do you mean that the other Sees fell into heresy? If so, we would not see it that way. All of our Sees are in tact and have been for quite some time, even before the schism between Rome and Constantinople.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[josie_L]

In Orthodoxy, unity is by basis of the same faith and Eucharistic communion, not administrative. That is why we do not have a pope and have autocephalous churches. The early Church attests to this as well.

I am a little confused by the second paragraph. Do you mean that the other Sees fell into heresy? If so, we would not see it that way. All of our Sees are in tact and have been for quite some time, even before the schism between Rome and Constantinople.

In Christ,
Andrew

If you look at scripture (which catalogues the earliest days of the Church), we see that St. Paul has no problem writing to other churches and telling them pretty much what they should do with regards to the faith and problematic issues. Then there is St. Peter writing to or addressing five provinces in Asia Minor (including areas evangelized by St. Paul) on how to keep the faith and conduct themselves “in spite of threats of persecution”. Does this sound like the early Church was autocephalous?

 

[Harpazo]

If you look at scripture (which catalogues the earliest days of the Church), we see that St. Paul has no problem writing to other churches and telling them pretty much what they should do with regards to the faith and problematic issues. Then there is St. Peter writing to or addressing five provinces in Asia Minor (including areas evangelized by St. Paul) on how to keep the faith and conduct themselves “in spite of threats of persecution”. Does this sound like the early Church was autocephalous?

There’s quite a difference between writing to someone and correcting them in Christian charity, and having complete administrative control over them. The Church in NT was still in its infancy. The Apostles believed that the world was going to end in their time. They did not plan for things ahead, with Patriarchs, synods, etc. These were later developments, but trace their origins to the Apostles. I don’t think you would contest that.

Check out the canons of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea and Constantinople. I cannot recall which one at the moment, but one of them declared Cyprus autocephalous (and it has been since that time and still is ) and another said something to the effect of “let the Bishop of Alexandria care for his diocese and other bishops care for the affairs of their own diocese.”

St. Gregory the Great in the 5th century is credited with saying in a letter to St. John the Faster:

“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others…You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of ‘universal’ upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God’s will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch explains the Orthodox view of ecclesiology quite well.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[VARC]

I dislike analogies, even my own.

Yeah I know it not that good but I was trying to give an example of leadership without formal authority. I don’t view the Pope as the successor of St Peter who Christ put in charge of the church. But the See of Rome is ancient, prestigious and emmensely influential in the Christian world. If Christians were to unite (not in a administrative way but an ecumenical and co-operative way) I think the Pope would be the most obvious leader. First among equals (quaterback) type of leader.

 

[VARC]

Imagine a football team where the quarterback calls the play, then each player decides which play to run.

That’s protestantism.

Jesus gave us a quarterback.

I like your analogy!

Yeah not very good analogy. I think that if you can envision the Pope as the quarterback our perspective would be that the QB has called an audible that the coach didn’t want and is detrimental to the success of the team. Perhaps we should call time-out, go into a huddle and work things out

 

[Harpazo]

Yeah I know it not that good but I was trying to give an example of leadership without formal authority. I don’t view the Pope as the successor of St Peter who Christ put in charge of the church. But the See of Rome is ancient, prestigious and emmensely influential in the Christian world. If Christians were to unite (not in a administrative way but an ecumenical and co-operative way) I think the Pope would be the most obvious leader. First among equals (quaterback) type of leader.

Exactly! I agree. Primus inter pares, the way it was. But it’s going to take a while for everyone to know their place on the team. There’s going to be another meeting of Orthodox and Catholic delegates in a few weeks in Cyprus, I believe. We’ll see what comes from that.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Arandur]

There’s quite a difference between writing to someone and correcting them in Christian charity, and having complete administrative control over them.

Even under the expanded power of the papacy today, it does not claim nor practice “complete administrative control.” There is a great deal of independence among the dioceses and national/regional councils of bishops, to say nothing of the independent Rites in communion with the Chair of Peter that do not practice the Roman/Latin Rite.

Check out the canons of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea and Constantinople. I cannot recall which one at the moment, but one of them declared Cyprus autocephalous (and it has been since that time and still is ) and another said something to the effect of “let the Bishop of Alexandria care for his diocese and other bishops care for the affairs of their own diocese.”

St. Gregory the Great in the 5th century is credited with saying in a letter to St. John the Faster:

You want to talk Revelation imagery? The very notion of “autocephali” smacks of the many-headed Dragon. It is a hydra, a chimaera, a beast far from Christian order. This alone should give you pause.

Just as the bishops of one region recognize an archbishop, a patriarch of a See, even, so must those archbishops and patriarchs recognize one with some authority over the deliberations of the rest of the assembly. This is ever how it is and has been. The King that leaves His kingdom in the charge of a number of entirely co-equal ministers finds His kingdom torn asunder. The King that leaves His Kingdom in subsidiary sections overseen in solidarity by a singular Minister leaves a force of unity for His Kingdom that can preserve it from all but the determined rebellion of some who refuse to recognize that Minister.

 

[Hesychios]

By the same logic that you accept “autocephalus” Sees or Metropolitans, as in one bishop having authority over other bishops in a region, you also, by extension, justify and indeed require for unity a bishop with some measure of authority over ALL the others.

It does not follow.

Do you not think it is a sign that all the Sees but Rome fell?

But Rome did fall.

For 1000 years solid running now, with no hint of a forthcoming correction.

That the only See remaining intact throughout history…

Whatever you mean by intact cannot mean what I think you mean.

Rome has been split before and presided over the greatest disaster in Christian history: the reformation of the sixteenth century. This horrible event was in large part precipitated by the “bad management” practices of the central office. It’s scandalous decision-making ultimately cost millions of innocent souls who were led astray. “better a millstone…”

In addition much of the fragmentation of the eastern churches was actually a result of western meddling. This is part of the historical record.