Define "Supremacy"

[Orthodoc]

[Augustine has been very consistent. He has not debunked primacy of the pope. There is no statement that says the Pope is not the leader of the Church. He in fact says that the Authority of the Pope comes from Christ.]

The authority of all the bishops of the church comes from Christ. Not just the Roman one.

As long as we use words like ‘primacy’ which have different meanings to each of us we will continue to talk and quote right past each other.

We Orthodox Catholics see ‘primacy’ as it was in the first millenium where it was a title of both honor and respect. A ‘first amongst equals’. The Ecumenical Patriarch now retains this form of ‘primacy’ amongst the Orthodox Catholic Churches. What does this ‘primacy’ of the EP entail? It means that he has the authority to convene a council, preside over that council, and most probably even decide the agenda for that council. But when push comes to shove on any particular subject that is voted upon, HE ONLY HAS ONE VOTE, the same as any of the other Bishops. Nor can he over ride any decision that is made by the majority of Bishops.

It seems that the western press sees the EP as some kind of eastern version of the Pope. He is not now, nor can he ever be considered the spiritual leader of the world’s 300 million Orthodox as the western press bills him! There are many of us who are not too happy he makes no attempt to correct this. But then again, we understand that he is fighting for his very existence as long as he stays in Turkey so to not correct it may be an attempt to empress the Turks who only see him as a bishop of a local flock.

My point is that we continue to post quotes using the word ‘primacy’ which means different things to each of us we will continue to talk past each other.

Orthodoc

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Aris,

Well if you are not taking things out of context then how can you say “Rome’s reply has come: the case is closed” as though that is a complete summation of Augustines thinking. Suffice it to say it is not.

It seems that some things had not been very clear to Augustine himself. The Latins took control of that endeavor. Sorry, I found it necessary to bring the issue of another pope reopening the case.

Pope Vigilius †555], in reconciling himself to the decisions of the Fifth ecumenical Synod, invoked the memory, among “…our Fathers,” of the “blessed Augustine” for his willingness to retract and correct various among his “writings” and “sayings” (“Decretal Letter,” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. XIV).

Aris, do you really think that an Ecumenical council would say the below and excommunicate Honorius as a heretic for just talking about or discussing a heresy? Would not such an action and the below language a bit different? Such words would only be put forth if a Pope was either promoting doctrine or teaching heresy that was in opposition to the Church.

“also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”

Is profane treachery found in silence? You can dance around the matter as much as you want to substantiate your position.

By the way according to your current Pope we the Orthodox are not “outside” of the Holy Catholic Church we are the other lung of the Catholic Church and the Papacy and infallibility are being looked at for adjustment so that those two lungs can “breath together”.

Papal infallibility didn’t exist in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church nor does it today irrespective of the words of others that are often taken out of context or placed in a different context or people can even create a context to manufacture infallibility.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Steve,

Popes are not anathematized as Honorius was if they remained silent and didn’t want the subject discussed. They are anathematized when they are advancing or supporting heresy. That is how that works. Those athematizing bishops are not stupid and are surely very compassionate if one renounces a teaching that is not in accordance with Orthodox thought.

The fact of the matter is that the 6th Ecumenical Council III Constantinople held in 680-681 A.D Pope Honorius was excommunicated from the Church for teaching and promoting heretical teachings. In fact, at two following Ecumenical Councils that decision was upheld. Read them and see for yourself. Additionally, he was also anathematized by name by Pope Leo II, and by every pope up through the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office. You may read the following yourself and you can either be honest with yourself and thus others or continue on with concoctions if you choose.

Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!..
Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus…and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome…), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).

Leo added an important qualification to the condemnation, that Honorius wasn’t condemned for teaching heresy but that he failed to end a heresy that was allowed to continue.

In his letters, Honorius specifically told Sergius to keep it quiet. That’s part of the record. That ***ALONE ***disqualifies this case as an example of infallible teaching by a pope.

And Honorius never said this was to be believed by the entire Church. That’s the second disqualifying factor for nullifying the issue of infallibility

You want to define infallibility for a pope your way, not the way Vatican I defines infallibility, then you attack your definition as if it is our definition. This is what’s called a strawman argument. Try applying the Vatican I definition of infallibility for popes, to the Honorius case, and you’ll see the argument goes nowhere.

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Steve,

No, Cyprian was not contradicting himself he was speaking at a time when the Bishop of Rome adhered to Orthodox teachings and thought. The year 251 is well before 1054 or 2004 as much has changed with the Latins.

He adheared to Catholic thinking.
Matthew P.:

I think that the newer developments infallibility, supremacy both of which I still am unable to understand and in short the papacy of today are not being addressed by St. Cyprian of Carthage in the (A.D. 251) quote you have provided.

1. It’s papal primacy, not supremacy.
2. Cyprian is but one ECF who described the understanding of the day for the bishop of Rome who occupies the chair of Peter.

Matthew P.:

Standing firm in a position of first over equals and not among equals would no longer convey equality. The “primacy” of Peter (which is more reasonable and understandable and hence not usually overly disputed) is significantly more different than infallibility and supremacy, in short, insofar as that is not the Orthodox tradition nor did it use to be yours.

1. You get primacy correct. And yes, it is not overly disputed except by those who have a vested interest in disputing it.
2. The primacy of Peter was handed on to the bishops of Rome. And Cyprian acknowledges that in the quotes I gave you…
3. Infallibility for popes has been defined by Vatican 1. I suggest you first learn about what you argue against. It saves time from having to deal with strawman arguments.

Matthew P.:

You are correct, St. Cyprian of Carthage and some other Church Fathers also regarded Peter to be the rock. However, I don’t think that any of the Orthodox Church Fathers regarded the Bishop of Rome (the chair of the Holy Apostle and human being) to be a rock of supremacy and infallibility as can be clearly shown.

You mix terminology in ways we don’t use them. You create strawman arguments. Look up infallibility as the Church defines it for the popes. Then let’s talk.
Matthew P.:

I think that inclusive in their understanding regarding the person of Peter to be the rock is Peter’s confession , for he would not be a rock without his confession 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”.

It’s not either/or but both. Peter is Rock by definition, and so is his faith.
Matthew P.:

For without this confession of faith and the holy mysteries (sacraments) given within the Church I don’t know what a person does. The Truth does not change whether in heaven or Hades or somewhere between. ***By the way those heretics that Cyprian was addressing had not been Orthodox Christians or Orthodox Bishops. ***

Do you think an EO bishop, priest, or layperson, could not be a heretic?
Matthew P.:

You could read the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895, article XVIII in the link below. Actually the whole encyclical is a good read for an Orthodox perspective on the See of Rome.
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/ency1895.html

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

The issue is infallibility of the pope. Not what Orthodoxy thinks of the see of Rome, although I was happy to read your link… newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Steve,

By the way if you read the Encyclical within the link of my above post you might notice that Leo III made a rather strong statement regarding the filoque that Saint Augustine mentioned.

The filioque is a tempest in a tea pot. “***Proceeds ***from the Father and the Son” does not mean originates from the Father and the Son. Yet that’s what Orthodox polemacists think the Catholic Church is saying. Look up “proceeds”. You’ll see there is no argument.
Matthew P.:

There is a strange sort of thinking that goes on with the Latins which seems to be that truth is adjustable from time to time. The Council of Florence comes to my mind.

Truth is not adjustable. Understanding of truth however, grows.
Matthew P.:

Pope Eugene IV’s dogmatic bull Cantate Domino, backed by the Council and proclaimed infallible the dogma of no salvation for anyone outside the Church.

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

At the time that the above was written it seems to me that the Orthodox had been considered to be schismatics from a Latin perspective. The strangeness of such a statement is that the those in the unia who accepted Latin understandings ask for the intercessions of the Saints of the Orthodox who the Latins considered to be heretics and schismatics. For the Latins things have changed again for nowadays anyone can be saved and Pope Eugene IV’s dogmatic infallible bull is either not infallible or the Orthodox and any person who can have any hope of salvation are united with the Pope of Rome even if we are not in communion with Rome. In some unknown way we are with the Latins and we just don’t know it even if we don’t want to be. So much for free will. I thought about that when you had provided the below text.

**They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are ***
secretly * in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another"

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC ] re: “outside the Church there is no salvation”

**"846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."
So you see, there is no contradiction. God has never held someone responsible for innocent ignorance. But once they know or learn the truth, THEN they are culpable for their decisions and choices in this matter.

 

[Orthodoc]

[My ancestors’ bishops did not change faith nor practice, but who they recognised as the ultimate head of the Church here on earth. At no time did those who made this decision ‘change religion’. ]

First off let me remind you that it is you not me who came in here and brought this particular issue up. If you want to go over it for the umpteenth time then I will, but open up a new thread because it is off topic in this one.

When your ancestors accepted the authority of the Pope and communion with the Roman Catholic church they became part os this church. With the exception of the ‘filioque’ your bishops agreed to accept the faith of the RCC in its entirety. So to claim you did not change your faith is ridiculous. As a sui juris church within the papal catholic structure you are bond by the Canons of the Eastern Churches which clearly state that your theology is no longer that of the Orthodox Catholic Church but that of the Roman Catholic Church.

A persons faith is not only identified by how one worships (which in now the only similiarity you share with the Orthodox Catholic Church) but the theology defined within the doctrines of the church one is in communion with. The term 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome ’ is an oxymoron because it implies that ones faith is based on how one worships rather than on what one believes…

As a sui juris church within the Roman Catholic Church you are required to belive in doctrines such as -

1. papal Supremacy
2. papal infallibility
3. purgatory
4. Immaculate Conception

To name a few. I suggest you read through the ‘Code of Canons of The Eastern Churches’ to learn more of what you are required to believe by being ‘In Communion’ hence, ‘Under the Authority’ of Rome. It is now on line and you can access it at -

intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

Orthodoc

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Aris,

Well if you are not taking things out of context then how can you say “Rome’s reply has come: the case is closed” as though that is a complete summation of Augustines thinking. Suffice it to say it is not.

It seems that some things had not been very clear to Augustine himself. The Latins took control of that endeavor. Sorry, I found it necessary to bring the issue of another pope reopening the case.

Pope Vigilius †555], in reconciling himself to the decisions of the Fifth ecumenical Synod, invoked the memory, among “…our Fathers,” of the “blessed Augustine” for his willingness to retract and correct various among his “writings” and “sayings” (“Decretal Letter,” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. XIV).

Aris, do you really think that an Ecumenical council would say the below and excommunicate Honorius as a heretic for just talking about or discussing a heresy? Would not such an action and the below language a bit different? Such words would only be put forth if a Pope was either promoting doctrine or teaching heresy that was in opposition to the Church.

“also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”

Is profane treachery found in silence? You can dance around the matter as much as you want to substantiate your position.

By the way according to your current Pope we the Orthodox are not “outside” of the Holy Catholic Church we are the other lung of the Catholic Church and the Papacy and infallibility are being looked at for adjustment so that those two lungs can “breath together”.

Papal infallibility didn’t exist in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church nor does it today irrespective of the words of others that are often taken out of context or placed in a different context or people can even create a context to manufacture infallibility.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

know 1st what you’re attacking, then you’ll be taken seriously.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Sarah Jane,

Could you ask Steve Ray what Augustine thought about the doctrine of infallibility or what Augustine would say about the excellence found in the notions of indulgences?

Our own court system issues indulgences all the time. As do all courts in the world. Why should you think the Church can’t exercise her authority with her judgements?
Matthew P.:

For these things and many more have assaulted the unity found in Peter. The Orthodox Church would not argue against primacy however when a see falls into error as Rome has such a
consideration is impossible.

What error are you talking about?
Matthew P.:

The Church Father Saint Gennadios Scholarios sums things in a rather concise way.

His comments as an Orthodox are noted.
Matthew P.:

“we believe in the Church; they (the Latins) in Augustine and Jerome.” The Church holds to our Lord’s dogmas and teachings that were commonly given by the holy apostles and councils.

Since Augustine out of human weakness presented ideas that had been in or made into contradiction or conflict with the Churches teachings another Father St. Photios for instance more or less says don’t go there and let these pious Latin fathers alone, because their doctrines conflict with the decision the Ecumenical Councils and Holy writ.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Saint Gennadios Scholarios comments from the Orthodox perspective are noted.

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve,

I have read your posts. There is quite a bit in them to address. As such I thought I would start with the things that I found the most odd in the realm of invincible ignorance.

"Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

I assume that someone like the Protestant Martin Luther might be in some trouble from the above statement. Would you agree with that?

For quite sometime there has been a schism between the Orthodox Church and the Latins. I assume you agree with that as well?

Get back to me on this and we can go from there.

Thanks in advance.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

By the way that New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia has quite a few very significant errors in it.

Here is a good article kind of long on the first Vatican Council
orthodoxchristianity.net/texts/Bulgakov_VaticanDogma.html
%between%

 

[Matthew_P]

Here is the part that I thought Steve might find to be of some interest. You do know Steve that there are some people with a profound understanding on these matters who have spent many hours studying these things that are Latins in every sense of the word, some of them find it very disturbing to say the least.

It is no doubt a historical fact that Peter himself not only erred, but actually denied Christ; that not Peter, but the apostolic council settled the dispute about the necessity of circumcision (Acts 15); that Peter was blamed by Paul for his action (Gal. 2, 11); that Pope Honorius erred in matters of faith; that 6th, 7th and 8th œcumenical councils anathemized Honorius as a heretic; that Pope Leo II admitted Honorius’s error; that Pope Vigilius preached heresy, and this was admitted by Pope Pelagius II at Aquilea in 586; that the 5th œcumenical council anathemized Pope Vigilius as a heretic; that for centuries the popes on assuming office vowed to recognize 8 œcumenical councils and to anathemize their predecessor Honorius *(Liber diurnus *ed. de Roziere form. 83 H.); that originally the popes admitted their fallibility in matters of faith (see Stellung74 ff.); that there are contradictions between papal decrees *ex cathedra *and between them and the resolutions of the œcumenical councils; that all the authoritative specialists on canon law, beginning with Gratian, in the XII and XIII centuries and many in the XIV and XV, and the most important of the Jesuits, Schmalzgrüber and Layman, admit that the pope may be accused of heresy *(Stellung. 189); that early popes certainly considered it necessary to call councils for settling questions relating to faith, and, in recommending this, the 5th œcumenical council quoted the example of the apostles (Schulte, Der Altkatholozismus, *309). This list may be supplemented by the following instances. In answering the Bulgarians in 866 Pope Nicolas I declared that baptism in the name of Lord Jesus Christ, even if performed by a Jew, was valid *(Denzingeri, *335); but according to the definition of Pope Alexander III (12th century), only baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity was valid *(Denz., *399), and naturally this was confirmed at the Council of Florence *(Denz., *696). (Of course Pope Nicolas I’s pronouncement is said to be his personal opinion and not *ex cathedra.) *Pope Alexander III declared that the baptismal formula must include the words *ego te baptizo; *but Pope Alexander VIII (17th century) admitted that the omission of those words does not render the baptism invalid *(Denz. 1317). With reference to intentioPope Innocent III (1210) in his bull against the Waldensians required i. fidelis; *Pope Alexander VIII maintained that a properly performed baptism was not effective if the priest inwardly said: *non intendo. There was thus introduced the idea of intentia interna. *Pope Leo XIII, on the contrary, in his bull about Anglican ordinations (1896) distinctly said that the church does not judge of the inner intention, but must judge of it only in so far as it is outwardly expressed.

[41] Of course Catholic theologians insist on drawing distinctions: they maintain that “as a private scholar, as a lay sovereign, as simply the Bishop of Rome, as the primate of Italy, as the patriarch of the West, the pope is not infallible; he is infallible solely and exclusively as the supreme head of the Church, and then only when speaking *ex cathedra…*Hence, decrees dealing with discipline, instruction, ecclesiastical policy or administration, as well as those applying the doctrine of faith to particular instances have as little to do with papal infallibility as the occasions on which the pope, though pronouncing on matters of doctrine, does it not in the solemn, universally-binding form *ex cathedra” *(Pohle, Kirchenlex. 244). All these abstract discriminations avail nothing in the face of the concrete unity of the bearer of absolute power as a person. They merely show that with regard to this question theologians are at a loss and do not know what to make of the Vatican dogma.

 

[Nate]

Matthew P.:

What are those keys that in your opinion Peter alone has been given?

They are a symbol of chief stewardship as in Is 22:22. They allow for administrative jurisdiction of the whole church.

Did the other Apostles receive the gift of the Holy Spirit from Peter?

Certainly not. The Church recognizes not only the Petrine authority but the collegial authority of the bishops and the congregational authority of the laity.

Even though the words “I will give unto thee” were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, 'Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted."(Jn. 20:23)

That doesn’t follow at all. You are failing to distinguish the different types of authority. All the bishops have sacramental authority, and the Church recognizes this even in schismatic bishops. Their sacraments are valid but not licit.

Peter alone was not breathed on by Christ.

But Peter alone was given the keys, and Peter alone was told to unify the church by strengthening his brethren Lk 22:32. And Peter alone was told to Shepherd Christ’s sheep Jn 21: 16.

As a result of these Peter notions from a Latin perspective the current reality is there are some 30,000 different denominations around today. The unity of Peter or Rome that is often referenced has not worked to well because of incorrect practices and understandings that continue to be put forth and promote division.

This is another non sequitur. It is because these denominations DO NOT RECOGNIZE OR ADHERE TO Peters primacy that these divisions exist. Not because his primacy exists. Do you blame Jesus because so many Jews rejected Him?

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Nate,

Do keep in mind that Rome is but one of several Apostolic sees and was held in high regard for maintaining the Orthodox faith. Since Rome has singularly “grown” apart in doctrine and new innovations from the other Apostolic sees and the Orthodox Church remains faithful to the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the gates of hades will not prevail against Her. For the Orthodox Church Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone. "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. Rome alone is not the Church that Christ founded.

Developing infallibility was not an inclusive part of Peters humility, for we know that Peter was grieved when Christ asked him for the third time do you love me more than these? Do you think that Peter might have been thinking along the lines within himself yes, Lord I love you more than these, or three times I have denied that I even knew you did any of these do such? I’m going to look into that and see what the fathers have to say on that subject matter.
As far as your comment “That doesn’t follow at all.” relative to the words below, suffice it to say the many Bishops of Rome most certainly used to believe them. And no Peter alone was not given the keys unless you want to think that all Grace comes from or is issued through Peter?

Even though the words “I will give unto thee” were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, 'Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted."(Jn. 20:23)

I thought I might mention that those divisions exist because of the practices of the primacy. No, I don’t blame Christ because the Jews don’t accept him. Christ was not selling indulgences and such. I think it is helpful if we keep things in their proper perspective somewhat anyway.

By the way, to Peter alone some other things had also been said. But certainly we are all mere human beings and capable of making some mistakes.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Nate,

Here are the remarks of a friend Matthew Steenberg for your consideration.
"The notion of distinguishing between Peter’s confession and Peter’s person in the ascription of the title ‘Rock’ by Christ has always struck me as a bit dualistic. Both are certainly true, and we must keep in mind that many Orthodox Fathers ascribe the title directly to Peter’s person, without equivocation, as warranted by his confession. The desire to divide the two has, I assume, been occasioned over the course of history precisely by the desire to compare and relate the RC and Orthodox understandings of Peter’s episcopacy and its place in relation to the other patriarchates.

But as much as both statements are true (namely, that the title ‘rock’ applies both to Peter himself and to his confession), so both are incorrect and dualist. If discussions such as this have anything to learn from the long history of Orthodox ascetical theology, it is that person and confession can only be divided and separated if neither one is whole or complete. True confession is the fruit and manifestation of purified personhood, and one’s person embodies and makes real his or her confession.

**For Orthodoxy, St Peter is the rock – the rock upon which Christ will and has built His Church. This is true of Peter’s person, Peter is the first among bishops, the prototype and model of hierarchs. It is also true of his confession, for Christ as the living Son of God is the heart and life of the Church, and without that confession she does not stand. **

This is all, however, somewhat separated from a discussion on the ‘primacy’ of any one bishop over another. We have seen, in another thread, quotations from multiple Fathers who show that this ‘first position’ of St Peter and of his patriarchate does not equate to primacy of authority, rule or power. We have also seen, in the current thread, that the earliest Church, that still reigned over by the Apostles, honoured St Peter but called its first council under the omophor of St James.

The Orthodox Church has always professed, and indeed still professes, that the Episcopal seat of St Peter is the first among those of the great sees. This must be clarified immediately to read first among equals of the successors to the holy Apostles, for the Church’s ‘collegiality’ does not ascribe more ‘spiritual authority’ (or such) to any one bishop over another. The successors of the Apostles are the successors to the Apostles, equal as respects the charism of the apostolate and authority in ‘rightly defining the Word of God’s truth’. They are, nonetheless, accorded an organized hierarchy of honour and organizational authority, precisely as the Lord organized the ranks of the original twelve Apostles. Thus amongst these equals there is a ‘first’, not inasmuch as canonical or spiritual authority are concerned, but as respects organization, unity, and patrimony.

In this ‘hierarchy of the hierarchs’, the bishop of Rome, the descendent of St Peter, is as noted above ranked first of all. However, because this organization of bishops also professes that none is doctrinally flawless or inerrant, it is possible for one or another - or even whole successions of bishops - to fall into error or heresy. This is precisely the situation that the Church would and does proclaim with regard to the see of St Peter. While it rightly would hold first place among the sees of the Church, the departure from the Orthodox Faith by its patrimony means that this position shifts to the next in the hierarchy - namely, Constantinople."

 

[Aris]

Again, we go back to that definition of primacy.

However, if we were to go back from the time of Moses to the present.

1. There has always been a leader put in charge of God’s people.
2. The kingdom of God needs a caretaker to take charge of the house.
3. Salvation history has never been about consensus. It is about obedience to the will of God and this means submission to those He has put to rule over us.
4. Peter was the head of the Church. It is therefore logical and reasonable following the model in the Bible that he will have a successor.
5. Your mention of Acts 15 is faulty and misleading. James was indeed the head/bishop of the Church of Jerusalem but we are not just talking of Jerusalem right? Also it was after the speech that Peter (retelling of his vision) gave that people quieted down (because they now must accept that Gentiles can be Christians) and listened to Paul and Barnabas give witness to the matter.
6. All your protestations that there was no such thing as the Chair of Peter, concept of infallibility before 1054 AD fall to nothing with the evidence of the Early Church Fathers. If there was no such thing why mention it?

 

[prodromos]

1. In the OT, those leaders were types of Christ.
2. Christ is not absent.
3. Unless they no longer confess the Orthodox faith
4. Christ was and is the head of the Church.
5. Jerusalem had the fullness of the Church yet was not under Peter
6. As long as Rome remained Orthodox it was held as the standard. This is no longer the case.

John.

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Aris,

I think that it is important to keep things in complete context. As such, the Orthodox Church rich and glorious in sacred tradition and the fullness of Truth understands these matters correctly.

Within the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church we know well the New Jerusalem.

“Shine, shine O new Jerusalem, for the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. Sing, dance and rejoice, O Sion, and Thou, O pure Mother of God take Thy delight in the Resurrection of Thy Son.”

You may read more on the subject of the foundation and the wall of the Holy City Jerusalem and the twelve apostles in Revelation 21.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[jphilapy]

Nate:

But Peter alone was given the keys, and Peter alone was told to unify the church by strengthening his brethren Lk 22:32. And Peter alone was told to Shepherd Christ’s sheep Jn 21: 16.

This is another non sequitur. It is because these denominations DO NOT RECOGNIZE OR ADHERE TO Peters primacy that these divisions exist. Not because his primacy exists. Do you blame Jesus because so many Jews rejected Him?

There were no major divisions in the church till the establishment of the primacy of Peter over all the rest. Since then many have been splitting off from the catholic church. Seems to me the problem of protestantism is caused by the catholic churches innovativness initially.

Jeff

 

[steve_b]

jphilapy:

There were no major divisions in the church till the establishment of the primacy of Peter over all the rest. Since then many have been splitting off from the catholic church. Seems to me the problem of protestantism is caused by the catholic churches innovativness initially.

Jeff

Jeff,

to answer your 3 points,

1. Peter always had primacy. Jesus established that, not any man or council.
2. As Paul says “those who divide aren’t serving Our Lord Jesus Christ but their own appetites” [Rm 15:17-18] sinful appetites at that. And those who live in the deadly sin of division are acting out on their sinful nature. Paul warns, they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. [Gal 5:19…]
3. You mention Protestants. After almost 500 years, they’re still splitting and dividing endlessly. You can’t blame Catholics for this. Look at where Paul lays the blame.

 

[jphilapy]

steve b:

Jeff,
2. As Paul says “those who divide aren’t serving Our Lord Jesus Christ but their own appetites” [Rm 15:17-18] sinful appetites at that. And those who live in the deadly sin of division are acting out on their sinful nature. Paul warns, they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. [Gal 5:19…]

Steve,

Regarding point 1: I seen the argument here between orthodox and catholics regarding the primacy and I think the orthodox make a great if not better case. In anycase before I can engage in the debate I would have to study much more on the topic. I am just citing that the specific example of Clement writing to Corinth to correct them is not sufficent evidence that Clement was taking authority over them and thus had primacy any more than Paul rebuking Peter was sufficent evidence that Paul had primacy over Peter.

Regarding point 2: Are you sure you are referencing the correct verses? I don’t see what those have to do with divisions.

I will reply on point 2 and 3 later.

Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

steve b:

Jeff,

to answer your 3 points,

1. As Paul says “those who divide aren’t serving Our Lord Jesus Christ but their own appetites” [Rm 15:17-18] sinful appetites at that. And those who live in the deadly sin of division are acting out on their sinful nature. Paul warns, they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. [Gal 5:19…]

I looked up thoses verses and I don’t see what they say about divisions. Are you sure you got the correct verses?

Jeff