DIVINE institution of the Primacy

[MilesVitae]

Isn’t that what the Holy Spirit is for? The Spirit makes Christ spiritually present in the Church, and physically present in the Eucharist. But your language doesn’t even mention the Spirit at all. Christ specifically frames the Spirit as someone who will come in his place.

The Eucharist does not provide a visible presence of Christ’s authority and primacy, as Marduk worded it.

 

[metan]

Because man pride, we made to many division, if each of us wants to be humble,OUR GOOD LORD JESUS CHRIST and HIS BELOVED MOTHER will stop crying.

God knows all these questions will pop up some say, that’s why jesus and his mother keep appear to those visionaries, check out what jesus n his mother said to myrna nazour and the children from medjugorje, and other visionaries until this very day,PEACE!!

 

[mathewjoseph]

St John Chrysostom in his letter top Flavian, the Patriarch of Antioch, addresses Flavian as Peter.
St. Chrysostom says "Ignatius of Antioch a “successor of Peter, on whom, after Peter, the government of the church devolved”

And in another place Chrysostom says this:
“Since I have named Peter, I am reminded of another Peter [Flavian, bishop of Antioch], our common father and teacher, who has inherited as well the virtues as the chair of Peter. Yea, for this is the privilege of this city of ours [Antioch], to have first (ἐν ἀρχῇ) had the coryphaeus of the apostles for its teacher. For it was proper that the city, where the Christian name originated, should receive the first of the apostles for its pastor.

 

[Schism_hater]

So do you mean that the Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ?

In a very real sense, yes. The Holy Spirit, was, in a very real sense, to take the place of Christ after His ascension. That is what Christ said “But I will send to you another comforter.” And we know that the Spirit does not just “comfort” but enlightens also.

 

[Schism_hater]

The Eucharist does not provide a visible presence of Christ’s authority and primacy, as Marduk worded it.

I didn’t say that it did. The Bishops, yes with the Bishop of Rome at thier head, are the visible presence of Christ’s authority and primacy. Notice I said the Bishop of Rome is “their” (the bishops’) head, not the head and ruler of the whole Church. The Bishops (“college of bishops” if you want) “rule” the Church, the Bishop of Rome is at the head of the bishops, as a first among equals.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

That is a misrepresentation of what the Orthodox believe. The system of primacy is encoded within the apostolic canons, and is thus considered to be of apostolic origin. What is believed to have developed from mundane or political factors is the location of primatial sees. The system is apostolic, but its manner of implementation is not completely immutable.

That’s a wise distinction. If I understand you correctly, it is IMO a thoroughly orthodox conception (I’ve always imagined you would lean towards the High Petrine end of the ideological spectrum ). I have come across that pov from other EO. According to this understanding, the “Roman” part of the claim is the point of contention. If the bishop of Rome becomes a heretic, he can lose the primacy among the Churches, which would then naturally transfer to the “next in line” (i.e., the bishop of Constantinople). The point of departure is not the primacy per se, but the orthodoxy of the bishop of Rome and peculiarly Catholic dogmas. As far as the primacy goes, the past debates I had with these particular EO was never concerned with debating the first two issues I enumerated at the beginning of the thread, but only the third (the interpretation of the primacy). On that note, the EO argument (at least those who lean towards the High Petrine view) is always against the Absolutist Petrine excesses (as they perceive the Catholic teaching to be).

Having said that, I have also debated EO Low Petrine advocates who definitely understand the primacy itself to have been a mere development borne of mundane circumstances, and I’ve encountered more EO with this pov than the former (the one you have expressed – of course, there are also other theories put out by EO as the rationale to reject the Catholic claims).

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

St John Chrysostom in his letter top Flavian, the Patriarch of Antioch, addresses Flavian as Peter.

Do you have a reference for that letter?

St. Chrysostom says "Ignatius of Antioch a “successor of Peter, on whom, after Peter, the government of the church devolved”

That would be the government of the Church in Antioch, right?

And in another place Chrysostom says this:
“Since I have named Peter, I am reminded of another Peter [Flavian, bishop of Antioch], our common father and teacher, who has inherited as well the virtues as the chair of Peter. Yea, for this is the privilege of this city of ours [Antioch], to have first (ἐν ἀρχῇ) had the coryphaeus of the apostles for its teacher. For it was proper that the city, where the Christian name originated, should receive the first of the apostles for its pastor.

Did he not also write immediately afterwards that Antioch gave Peter up to glorious Rome?

Btw, if St. Chrysostom thought that the bishop of Antioch had the headship of the Churches, why did he appeal instead to the bishop of Rome to fix the problems at Constantinople?
“But inasmuch as we ought not to mourn, but to restore order, and to see by what means this most grievous storm of the Church may be stayed, we have deemed it necessary to persuade my lords, the most honoured and pious bishops Demetrius, Pansophius, Pappus and Eugenius to leave their own churches, and venture on this great sea voyage, and set out on a long journey from home, and hasten to your Charity, and, after informing you clearly of everything, to take measures for redressing the evils as speedily as possible.”
Letter to Pope Innocent

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

In a very real sense, yes. The Holy Spirit, was, in a very real sense, to take the place of Christ after His ascension. That is what Christ said “But I will send to you another comforter.” And we know that the Spirit does not just “comfort” but enlightens also.

The Holy Spirit works in and through people. That’s the incarnational principle by which our Churches live.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MilesVitae]

Dear brother MilesVitae,

To repeat, what rationale can be offered to REJECT the most natural interpretation?

The Catholic position accepts ALL the valid interpretations. We recognize its moral application for every level of the hierarchy where the position of a chief exists. What is the viability of the non-Catholic position that willfully rejects the most natural interpretation?

Do you understand what I’m getting at? What is logical about a paradigm (non-Catholic) that rejects the most natural interpretation in the face of a paradigm (Catholic) that accepts all the valid interpretations that does not conflict with its most natural interpretation? Keep in mind that in exegesis, the Catholic paradigm demands that we interpret Scripture according to its most natural meaning. We certainly take Jesus’ word according to its most natural meaning with regards to eating his flesh, and baptism by water. Why not here, where he plainly explains that he will set one servant over the other servants? He is speaking to the Apostles who had a universal solicitude over the Church. Therefore, the most natural meaning of the head servant is one that has universal scope. We do not doubt that it is the sure model for every level of the hierarchy where there is a chief figure, but what rationale can you offer for not maintaining its most natural meaning alongside its use as a model for every level of the hierarchy? Pragmatically speaking, Christ set up the universal standard; as the Church grew larger, the Church determined the untility of applying the universal standard to the local context.

I can think of no reason to reject what we are calling the natural interpretation, prior to any scriptural or patristic evidence to the contrary, so I will concede your point for now.

Further, the theory of Eucharistic ecclesiology Is senseless without acknowledgement of a visible chief office. Eucharistic ecclesiology is an ecclesiology of unity. An ecclesiology of unity cannot exist without the visible principle of a chief among the group that shares the Eucharist. This is why in the local Church, we do not have merely priests, but a bishop who is the principle of unity for the whole diocese (on a regional level, this visible principle of unity is the Metropolitan; on the patriarchal level, it is the Patriarch; and on the universal level, it is the Pope). Think about it - a purely metaphysical Eucharistic ecclesiology does not even require the bishop. But our ecclesiology is incarnational, not purely metaphysical.

I think I would need to deepen my understanding of Eucharistic ecclesiology before I could offer any response to this argument (if there is any sound response, that is), since I am only acquainted with it, and perhaps my understanding of it is flawed - my understanding of it was that the universal Church is manifest in each local Church, with the Bishop as head. In that sense, the Church at Antioch is the Church, the Church at Jerusalem is the Church, the Church at Springfield is the Church.
The problem I see with this is that there still seems to remain the fact of a universal Church, in the sense of a body of Churches spread throughout the world - are they simply separate from each other, is this empirical body of Churches not a reality (this is in response to Eucharistic ecclesiology as I so shallowly understand it - not in response to your position, which I think is in agreement with my thoughts in this regards. Please correct any misunderstandings on my part ).

The parable explicitly refers not just to the position of the servant, but also to the position of the servant who is set over the other servants. If one admits the perpetuity of the role of servant, what prevents you from admitting the same for the role of the head servant? Also, since you would obviously admit that this servant in perpetuity is an office, please explain why the head servant in perpetuity would not also be an office.

I worded myself poorly. I meant that we can safely interpret the parable to indicate the perpetuity of the head servants’ office(s), whether the head servant in the parable indicates a single head servant over the whole Church, or only various head servants over parts of the Church. As far as the question of that single head servant, as I said above, I will concede this point for the time being.
I tend to be very cautious, perhaps overly cautious, in what conclusions I draw from scriptural passages unless it is abundantly clear that a particular interpretation is correct…

(1) Can one deny Jesus’ own explanation of the parable that he will be setting one servant over the household with greater responsibility than the other servants?
(2) In this parable, how do you interpret (a) the role of the servant and (b) the role of the servant who will be set over the other servants and the entire household? Personally, I interpret this to mean the Apostles and St. Peter, or the bishop and the head bishop. In other words ,it does not refer to the general Christan. That’s the most natural meaning, and he was in fact speaking directly to the Apostles alone when he gave this parable.

I believe my response to this is already contained in my comments earlier in this post.

As the discussion progresses, I hope to demonstrate that the secular factor is not even evident in the Church until the 3rd century, which does no justice to the fact of Rome’s evident primacy even before that time.

I look forward to it

 

[MilesVitae]

CONT’d
I affirm wholeheartedly it is because the Church would not act or think w/o evident warrant from Jesus or the Apostles. In everything they did, they would have to ask themselves “Would Jesus or the Apostles approve of this action or way of thinking?” In fact, since that generation was so close to apostolic times, I think the question on their minds was rather “did the Jesus or the Apostles say anything about this?” Assuming this premise, it goes back to my original question – where did the idea of primacy come from, if not from Jesus and the Apostles?

Hmmm. I still think it plausible that a Church could gain honor and deference from the other Churches and, in this sense, a primacy or priority. However, the primacy of a “head bishop” seems to suggest something stronger than this, and the point you make is well taken. Furthermore, you have indicated Apostolic Canon 34, its ancient origin and, in light of Cavaradossi’s comment, it would seem that an ecclesial structure involving head Bishops was Apostolic in origin.

Not much context to speak of. It is a Canon. Here it is in full:
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concen his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit

A Synod of Antioch in 341A.D.:…

I see important differences between the ancient canon and the one from Antioch. I’ll hold off discussion on them until you comment.

Again, looking forward to it.

I agree. I’ve never found evidence for St. Peter’s primacy ALONE to be sufficient to establish the papal claims. Of course, there is a great apologetic utility in establishing the primacy of St. Peter because there are Protestants, and even Eastern Orthodox, who deny that St. Peter even had a primacy among the Apostles (I’ve debated EO here in the CAF who even claimed there was no such thing as a head bishop!).

I agree wholeheartedly!

 

[MilesVitae]

CONT’d

Btw, you have not responded to my analogy to the divine institution of the Sacraments. Many of them do not have explicit Scriptural warrant for perpetual continuation – we only have (1) their certain establishment or approval by Christ and the Apostles as recorded in Scripture, and (2) evidence of the historical and perpetual practice of the Church. It seems to me recognition of the divine institution of the primacy depends on similar, if not identical, grounds – i.e., (1) clear indication in Scripture of an establishment of primacy, and (2) the historical and perpetual practice of the Church as far as recognizing a primacy among the Churches.

 

[Schism_hater]

Related to what we have been talking about, someone needs to address one of the concerns in Philip Sherrard’s book: Church, Papacy and Schism, namely, how can the special charisms that Catholics claim for the Papacy, esp. supremacy and infallibiity, exist apart from a special sacramental conferrence by Christ? The only sacramental action we have by Christ conferring special charisms was to all the Apostles, in John.

 

[Schism_hater]

The Holy Spirit works in and through people. That’s the incarnational principle by which our Churches live.

Blessings,
Marduk

Certainly the Spirit works in and through people, but I have problems with linking that to the incarnational principle. Remember, it is the Son who is incarnated, not the Spirit.

 

[marlo]

Can you refer a Patristic document referring the Holy Spirit as the Vicar of Christ.

or Lets say, in the very strict sense: Who is the Vicar of Christ on Earth?

1. The Holy Spirit
2. St. Peter and the Apostles

I guess the Orthodox position would be the Holy Spirit and the Catholic position will be Peter and the Apostles,

Certainly the Spirit works in and through people, but I have problems with linking that to the incarnational principle. Remember, it is the Son who is incarnated, not the Spirit.

 

[yawsep1569]

Who is the Vicar of Christ on Earth?

1. The Holy Spirit
2. St. Peter and the Apostles

I guess the Orthodox position would be the Holy Spirit and the Catholic position will be Peter and the Apostles,

Trolling? Not sure if the Orthodox see the necessity to label someone as the Vicar of Christ. Not sure if I do either. There is Christ and then there is the Church headed by the body of bishops, of which the Pope of Rome is the head. Vicar is really an unnecessary term, but feel free to use it if it makes you happy.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother schism hater,

Related to what we have been talking about, someone needs to address one of the concerns in Philip Sherrard’s book: Church, Papacy and Schism, namely, how can the special charisms that Catholics claim for the Papacy, esp. supremacy and infallibiity, exist apart from a special sacramental conferrence by Christ? The only sacramental action we have by Christ conferring special charisms was to all the Apostles, in John.

Sherrard’s claim that supremacy and infallibility exist apart from Christ in any way is not Catholic teaching. As a Catholic, I would certainly love to address his claims, but whatever he thinks he is writing about, it is not Catholic doctrine. So why should any Catholic waste time?

Btw, may I ask what your understanding of a Sacrament is? From what I have learned as a Catholic and a Copt, Sacraments are for sanctification, the giving of Grace. The Church’s form of government was given to us by Christ, but how we are governed is not a means of Grace. If Sherrard is trying to make it so, all I can say is he’s got an overactive imagination.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Certainly the Spirit works in and through people, but I have problems with linking that to the incarnational principle. Remember, it is the Son who is incarnated, not the Spirit.

The incarnational principle is about God revealing Himself and acting through His creation. I confess my surprise that an Orthodox Christian does not know this basic definition.

This is a sincere question - does Eastern Orthodox catechesis in English-speaking countries teach about the incarnational principle, or perhaps teach about it by another term?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Can you refer a Patristic document referring the Holy Spirit as the Vicar of Christ.

It was Tertullian, IIRC.

or Lets say, in the very strict sense: Who is the Vicar of Christ on Earth?

1. The Holy Spirit
2. St. Peter and the Apostles

I guess the Orthodox position would be the Holy Spirit and the Catholic position will be Peter and the Apostles,

The Holy Spirit on the one hand, and the Apostles on the other? That would be a false dichotomy, wouldn’t you agree?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MilesVitae]

The incarnational principle is about God revealing Himself and acting through His creation. I confess my surprise that an Orthodox Christian does not know this basic definition.

Blessings,
Marduk

Would examples of this paradigm be the Sacraments and their ministers, the visible structure of the Church, the Bishops as teachers and governors?

I’ve been mulling over this whole question in terms of the “Incarnational principle” for the last day or so…

 

[Cavaradossi]

The incarnational principle is about God revealing Himself and acting through His creation. -]I confess my surprise that an Orthodox Christian does not know this basic definition./-]

This is a sincere question - does Eastern Orthodox catechesis in English-speaking countries teach about the incarnational principle, or perhaps teach about it by another term?

The incarnational principle is always covered when the Seventh Ecumenical Council is taught. The name, however, might not be used much in Orthodox theology. I don’t recall the term being used much in the stuff I’ve read, even though the principle is ever-present in Orthodox thought.