Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[mardukm]

Or even a bishop of Rome. The actual epistle is signed in the name of the Roman Church. That being said, I think most are uncomfortable thinking of the implications of such an argument, since it would mean that the Reformers were essentially right to believe that the episcopacy was not a different office from the presbyters, which is why this argument is so rarely made. St. Jerome seems to have believed, however, that the presbyters and episcopoi were at one time the same office, so I guess even that idea has patristic support.

A presbyteral system does not discount the existence of a head among those presbyters. It may have been later that such a person obtained the formal title of “bishop,” but that such a head existed is dictated at least by the mere needs of administration.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

And this also begs the question that I think Marduk is asking; why Rome and not say, Athens? Especially in light of the distance…

Distance is not a factor here. The primacy is the factor. It doesn’t matter if Rome was more accessible or not distance-wise. The fact is that the Church of Corinth appealed to an authority that is outside its primatial province.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

We shouldn’t make conclusions just because point B is closer to point A than point C.

Agreed.

There could definitely be more factors in the decision. And who knows, maybe with the availability of ships going to and from the capital, it is easier to send a message there.

Athens was the cultural center of that province around the turn of the century. It would have been easier to send a message to Athens.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It is somewhat wrong to think Athens was the major city it is today. Classical Athens was long gone.

Athens was still the cultural center of learning in that Roman province around the turn of the century (when St. Clement’s letter is dated). I think it began its decline in the mid-second century.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Trebor135]

Distance is not a factor here. The primacy is the factor. It doesn’t matter if Rome was more accessible or not distance-wise. The fact is that the Church of Corinth appealed to an authority that is outside its primatial province.

Were the boundaries between ecclesiastical provinces established as early as circa AD 96? (If this has already been covered earlier, feel free to direct me to the relevant post(s).)

 

[Cavaradossi]

We are dealing with interpretations of history. It is not what is objectively true or false that matters, but what is plausible. The Orthodox explanations are not plausible, but the Catholic explanations are.

If such an interpretation is based on plausibility, then there is a serious flaw in using it to support the conclusion that papal supremacy as currently held by the Catholic Church is true in a dogmatic sense.

 

[mardukm]

Were the boundaries between ecclesiastical provinces established as early as circa AD 96? (If this has already been covered earlier, feel free to direct me to the relevant post(s).)

That is the argument that Cavaradossi proposes, which I think is more reasonable than the other Orthodox claim that bases the ecclesiastical jurisdictions (at this early stage in Church history) on geo-political divisions that did not even exist until the turn of the 4th century.

For example, St. Polycarp is traditionally regarded as the Primate of the Asian Churches, which was a distinct province of the Roman empire. Italy (the greatest metropolitan center of which was Rome) was in a different province than Corinth (the greatest metropolitan center of that province was Athens).

Of course, these are geographic boundaries that the Church accomodated to itself for good administration. But this is a different issue than ecclesiastical primacy, which always belonged to Rome. Proof positive that ecclesiastical primacy was not directly attached to geopolitical primacy was the fact that even after the capital of the Empire was moved to Constantinople, the ecclesiastical primacy still belonged to the Church/bishops of Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

If such an interpretation is based on plausibility, then there is a serious flaw in using it to support the conclusion that papal supremacy as currently held by the Catholic Church is true in a dogmatic sense.

I think most Catholic scholars or apologists would agree with you, on the basis of the development of doctrine. I don’t think any reputable Catholic source would claim that the Clementine letter PROVES papal supremacy/primacy (though Absolutist Petrine Neo-ultramontanists might claim that), but simply rather that it provides an early demonstration of the basic principles of the dogma.

Personally, I believe the dogma of papal supremacy/primacy should not be based on development of doctrine, but on Scripture and the principle of Apostolic Succession. Of course, much also depends on one’s understanding of papal supremacy/primacy, and the Absolutist Petrine (mis)interpretation of the Vatican Decrees is rather different from the true intentions of the Vatican Fathers (the High Petrine position).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Trebor135]

Personally, I believe the dogma of papal supremacy/primacy should not be based on development of doctrine, but on Scripture and the principle of Apostolic Succession.

What about Tradition and patristics? But then, the “power of the keys” wasn’t understood in the same way during the whole first millennium as it has been since around the Protestant Reformation: this short survey of the data is highly illuminating.

 

[mardukm]

What about Tradition and patristics?

But then, the “power of the keys” wasn’t understood in the same way during the whole first millennium as it has been since around the Protestant Reformation. This short survey of the data is highly illuminating.

I agree. I think the argument of the Keys as far as Primacy/Supremacy is concerned is weak, because Tradition indicates that despite the fact that the keys were given to Peter personally, the power of the keys was meant to be shared. I believe the keys is more indicative of the principle of collegiality than of primacy/supremacy (it should be noted that the source you provide does give evidence that the keys as a reference to the general government of the Church did exist during the patristic era).

To me, the greater Scriptural support for primacy/supremacy (properly understood) is Matthew 24 (where Jesus rhetorically asks, “who is the wise servant over whom the master will set over the household to feed it when he leaves?”) and the Johannine verses wherein Jesus assigns to St. Peter the responsibility of feeding his household. Matthew 24 and John 21 are intimately interconnected, and indicates the primacy/supremacy (properly understood) that Christ established for the Church. That should be the dogmatic/scriptural basis for the Primacy.

Blessings,
Marduk