Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[Nine_Two]

Even granting the EO theory, the earliest time such ecclesiastical boundaries would have been realized is in 285, nearly two centuries after Pope St. Clement’s time. Before that time, the Roman Empire was one, and if the EO theory must remain consistent, it has to admit that at the time of Pope St. Clement, he must have had universal solicitude throughout the Roman Empire, at least.

I’m not sure why you have to wait until 285. The Roman Empire was divided into provinces long before it was an Empire.

 

[Carefree_T]

And Pope Hadrian obviously would not deny the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

And this would not explain why the Popes saw fit to exert their authority in other matters, such as Pope St. Victor with the Quartodeciman controversy, and Pope St. Stephen in the Baptism controversy–these matters being not confined to Corinth and Greece.

And those popes were openly rebuked by other bishops, and their exertions were duly ignored by the Church. This is the main contention between the Catholics and Orthodox. The Catholics point to the countless times popes attempted to exert authority on the whole Church and the Orthodox point to the countless times the Church ignored their hubris and shrugged off their exertions.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Could the Russian Orthodox Church today be what the Roman Catholic Church was in its early days? It seems that Russia has been maneuvering to have more Churches under her omophorion and seems to exert some undue influence on other bishops/patriarchs. I have a Greek Orthodox friend who described the situation as “bullying” by the ROC Patriarch over the Ecumenical Patriarch.

 

[Hesychios]

Could the Russian Orthodox Church today be what the Roman Catholic Church was in its early days?..

I think about that sometimes. I don’t know … power accumulates …

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think about that sometimes. I don’t know … power accumulates …

It seems to follow a similar pattern. Roman Empire, Soviet Union. What does the Orthodox say about granting autocephally to Churches that is in a separate secular boundary?

 

[Hesychios]

It seems to follow a similar pattern. Roman Empire, Soviet Union. What does the Orthodox say about granting autocephally to Churches that is in a separate secular boundary?

I can only refer to the early canons, which suggested Roman provinces have their own synods led by a Metropolitan. But we have to understand that the Roman empire was a collection of nations. Outside of the empire nations organized themselves similarly, as in Armenia and Persia and India.

Some mother churches have a hard time letting go of their mission territories. Such was the case with Ethiopia under the Popes of Alexandria. Usually in history (as far as I can tell) autocephaly for newer younger churches was granted as an expedient, not because the mother church wanted it but often because they had no choice.

The church of Cyprus had to take their complaint to an Ecumenical Council to be recognized. But I can see why the Metropolitan of Antioch would think he had jurisdiction there. This was an early case, but it helped establish a precedent.

There are a lot of ways to look at this, but it’s late and I am so tired. :coffeeread:

 

[ConstantineTG]

I can only refer to the early canons, which suggested Roman provinces have their own synods led by a Metropolitan. But we have to understand that the Roman empire was a collection of nations. Outside of the empire nations organized themselves similarly, as in Armenia and Persia and India.

Some mother churches have a hard time letting go of their mission territories. Such was the case with Ethiopia under the Popes of Alexandria. Usually in history (as far as I can tell) autocephaly for newer younger churches was granted as an expedient, not because the mother church wanted it but often because they had no choice.

The church of Cyprus had to take their complaint to an Ecumenical Council to be recognized. But I can see why the Metropolitan of Antioch would think he had jurisdiction there. This was an early case, but it helped establish a precedent.

There are a lot of ways to look at this, but it’s late and I am so tired. :coffeeread:

Interesting. Because I am aware of the complications in a jurisdiction like Ukraine, where Russia both ecclesiastically and politically want to take Ukraine back under her. And it is a reason why the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is split as well, more of a political issue rather than a spiritual schism. They don’t want to be under Russia no matter what.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

For example, you cited Warren Treadgold whom you say cites Milton Anastos, but as I showed you in my post #534, Anastos says that, “…the Roman see had been permitted from 395 on to exercise supervision over Greek-speaking churches in Greece…” --Source: myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_12.html (emphasis mine)–

Okay, let’s for one moment assume that Rome had been permitted from 395 onwards to exercise supervision over the Church of Greece, does that mean that Rome had no such authority over the Church of Greece before 395?

And this would not explain why the Popes saw fit to exert their authority in other matters, such as Pope St. Victor with the Quartodeciman controversy, and Pope St. Stephen in the Baptism controversy–these matters being not confined to Corinth and Greece.

I would not deny that the popes claimed universal jurisdiction from the first century onwards. That would be stupid.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

But it seems to me that you are putting together citations of people who do not agree with what appears to be your conclusion --that the Pope had jurisdiction over Corinth from the 1st-8th centuries (and not universal jurisdiction)-- in an attempt to prove that conclusion (if indeed it is your conclusion.)

It isn’t. Back on page 33 Fone Bone said:

Agreed. St. Clement I, on the other hand, was not an Apostle. He was a bishop. I’ve yet to see a convincing non-Catholic explanation for why he should have had the authority to take action concerning a crisis in the Church of Corinth.

So I tried giving an explanation and I wanted to see how well universal jurisdiction can be defended.

 

[mardukm]

Of course, but that didn’t stop the Church from setting its structure up after the provincial divisions already present in the Empire.

And the notion militates against the EO theory. If the Church was following the provincial boundaries (a reasonable claim, IMO), and each province had its primate, then Corinth was clearly not in the same province as Rome. Corinth was in the province of Achaea, and the closest Metropolitan center was Athens, not Rome.

The EO theory cannot answer why Corinth would appeal to the Church of Rome which is in a completely different province. The Catholic position, however, answers it - the Church of Rome had a recognized universal auctoritas which went beyond provincial boundaries.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

And the notion militates against the EO theory. If the Church was following the provincial boundaries (a reasonable claim, IMO), and each province had its primate, then Corinth was clearly not in the same province as Rome. Corinth was in the province of Achaea, and the closest Metropolitan center was Athens, not Rome.

The EO theory cannot answer why Corinth would appeal to the Church of Rome which is in a completely different province. The Catholic position, however, answers it - the Church of Rome had a recognized universal auctoritas which went beyond provincial boundaries.

Blessings,
Marduk

Cathedrals aren’t set-up by proximity. Not just because one is closer to another Metropolitan Cathedral means one belongs to that center. I’m not saying one answer is right and the other is wrong here, I’m just saying we can’t make assumptions based on which is nearer. For example, our Eparchy’s Cathedral is in New Westminster, BC which is on the south west of our huge province. If one is in Prince George, BC, one belongs to this Eparchy. Yet Prince George is closer to Edmonton which is another Eparchial Cathedral, than to New Westminster.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Constantine,

Cathedrals aren’t set-up by proximity. Not just because one is closer to another Metropolitan Cathedral means one belongs to that center. I’m not saying one answer is right and the other is wrong here, I’m just saying we can’t make assumptions based on which is nearer. For example, our Eparchy’s Cathedral is in New Westminster, BC which is on the south west of our huge province. If one is in Prince George, BC, one belongs to this Eparchy. Yet Prince George is closer to Edmonton which is another Eparchial Cathedral, than to New Westminster.

The argument is not about proximity. The argument is that the Metropolitan center of Athens is in the SAME PROVINCE as Corinth. EO are claiming that these provincial boundaries existed early on for the Church, and that there were local primates in these provinces. If the EO claim is true (which I believe is reasonable), then it only strengthens the Catholic position, since Corinth turned to the Church of Rome instead of the Church of Athens. This indicates at least an auctoritas for the Church of Rome which went beyond provincial boundaries.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

And the notion militates against the EO theory. If the Church was following the provincial boundaries (a reasonable claim, IMO), and each province had its primate, then Corinth was clearly not in the same province as Rome. Corinth was in the province of Achaea, and the closest Metropolitan center was Athens, not Rome.

The EO theory cannot answer why Corinth would appeal to the Church of Rome which is in a completely different province. The Catholic position, however, answers it - the Church of Rome had a recognized universal auctoritas which went beyond provincial boundaries.

Blessings,
Marduk

One could just as easily make the same argument for why the Corinthians wrote to Paul, a man who never even knew Christ during His ministry, just several decades earlier. Why didn’t they write Peter instead? This line of questioning is completely unsound because one cannot show conclusively what their motivations were to write to Paul and not Peter or to write to Rome and not elsewhere. Perhaps they, being a Church instructed by Paul, wished to write to the Church where Paul was martyred for advice. Perhaps they drew lots. Perhaps they threw days at a map. Or maybe they sent letters out to other Churches which did not respond, or perhaps they did respond, but provided unsatisfactory solutions which were discarded. Does this speculation seem absurd to you? Then perhaps you will see why your attempt to read the minds of people who wrote a letter to Rome nineteen centuries ago is equally absurd. The most that can be said is that they wrote to Rome, but nothing can be conclusively shown about why they did so, since their letter to Rome is not extant to my knowledge.

 

[mardukm]

One could just as easily make the same argument for why the Corinthians wrote to Paul, a man who never even knew Christ during His ministry, just several decades earlier. Why didn’t they write Peter instead?

The answer is pretty obvious - St. Paul is the one who preached the Gospel in Corinth, not St. Peter.

This line of questioning is completely unsound because one cannot show conclusively what their motivations were to write to Paul and not Peter or to write to Rome and not elsewhere.

We know why they wrote to Paul, so your argument that is unsound.

Perhaps they, being a Church instructed by Paul, wished to write to the Church where Paul was martyred for advice.

That’s a good reason. It is part of the reason for the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome.

Perhaps they drew lots. Perhaps they threw days at a map. Or maybe they sent letters out to other Churches which did not respond, or perhaps they did respond, but provided unsatisfactory solutions which were discarded. Does this speculation seem absurd to you? Then perhaps you will see why your attempt to read the minds of people who wrote a letter to Rome nineteen centuries ago is equally absurd.

The most reasonable rejoinder that non-Catholics can offer (that there were provincial boundaries in the early Church) turns out to actually support the Catholic position. So you imagine these rather ludicrous possibilities, and somehow you think that this diminishes the force of the most obvious answer?

The most that can be said is that they wrote to Rome, but nothing can be conclusively shown about why they did so, since their letter to Rome is not extant to my knowledge.

The authoritative tenor of St. Clement’s letter and the obvious reverence shown to it afterwards says more than enough.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[LionHeart777]

It isn’t. Back on page 33 Fone Bone said:

So I tried giving an explanation and I wanted to see how well universal jurisdiction can be defended.

Credo,

I apologize for my incorrect assumption.

 

[LionHeart777]

Okay, let’s for one moment assume that Rome had been permitted from 395 onwards to exercise supervision over the Church of Greece, does that mean that Rome had no such authority over the Church of Greece before 395? …

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “no such authority” but I believe that the Papacy has had a Primacy of jurisdiction from it’s beginning; and that over the whole Catholic Church. Sorry to spell out the obvious, as I am Catholic. Perhaps if you want me to answer further you could clarify?

 

[LionHeart777]

And those popes were openly rebuked by other bishops, and their exertions were duly ignored by the Church. This is the main contention between the Catholics and Orthodox. The Catholics point to the countless times popes attempted to exert authority on the whole Church and the Orthodox point to the countless times the Church ignored their hubris and shrugged off their exertions.

I agree that this is a point of contention. I don’t agree that “…their exertions were duly ignored by the Church…” (emphasis mine) Same goes for your statement that “…the Church ignored their hubris and shrugged off their exertions…” (emphasis mine) (Not that I agree that it was hubris nor do I believe “the Church” saw it as such.)

Regarding the Quartodecimen controversy:

“After the pope’s * strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away.”

Source: Thurston, Herbert. “Easter Controversy.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 10 Jul. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm.

Do you celebrate Easter on Sunday?

I believe this was also a matter of discipline.

Regarding the Rebaptism of Heretics:

“Probably when it was seen at Rome that the East was largely committed to the same wrong practice, the question was tacitly dropped. It should be remembered that, though Stephen had demanded unquestioning obedience, he had apparently, like Cyprian, considered the matter as a point of discipline.”

Source: Chapman, John. “St. Cyprian of Carthage.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 10 Jul. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm.*

 

[Hesychios]

I agree that this is a point of contention. I don’t agree that “…their exertions were duly ignored by the Church…” (emphasis mine) Same goes for your statement that “…the Church ignored their hubris and shrugged off their exertions…” (emphasis mine) (Not that I agree that it was hubris nor do I believe “the Church” saw it as such.)

Regarding the Quartodecimen controversy:

“After the pope’s * strong measures the Quartodecimans seem* to have gradually dwindled away.”

Source: Thurston, Herbert. “Easter Controversy.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 10 Jul. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm.

Do you celebrate Easter on Sunday?

I believe this was also a matter of discipline.

Regarding the Rebaptism of Heretics:

"Probably when…
Articles in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia sometimes have no more credibility than blog posts.

There is no room for seem and probably if you are looking for truth. What you are getting is spin.

The fact is that the churches of Asia continued to follow their own practice another 125 to 130 years on dating Pascha until they mutually agreed, at the Council of Nicea, to follow the new computation of the dating of Pascha worked out there.

Another important fact was that most Eastern Christian synods strongly felt that Pascha should be on a Sunday, and wished for all Christians to celebrate on the same day. One would think (and bishop Victor of Rome might have assumed) that it would be easy to get the rest of the church to agree with him and follow his lead. But their common regard for the churches of Asia was so great they were unwilling to break with Asia on this point. The bishop of Rome obviously had no authority to make that kind of decision on behalf of the rest of the church, he was opposed all over the church and he backed down.

If bishop Victor of Rome had gone ahead with his plans he could easily have seen his own synod isolated from most of the others and accomplished nothing for it. He came to realize this and withdrew his challenge.

 

[Carefree_T]

Interesting. Because I am aware of the complications in a jurisdiction like Ukraine, where Russia both ecclesiastically and politically want to take Ukraine back under her. And it is a reason why the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is split as well, more of a political issue rather than a spiritual schism. They don’t want to be under Russia no matter what.

Their main point is that Ukraine is the “Mother Church” of Russia, historically. Yet the Church of Moscow claims authority over Ukraine, and it is further aggravated by the historical fact that the Patriarchate of Moscow kind of forcefully established itself, if you will, rather than being instituted canonically.

I agree that this is a point of contention. I don’t agree that “…their exertions were duly ignored by the Church…” (emphasis mine) Same goes for your statement that “…the Church ignored their hubris and shrugged off their exertions…” (emphasis mine) (Not that I agree that it was hubris nor do I believe “the Church” saw it as such.)

Regarding the Quartodecimen controversy:

“After the pope’s * strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away.”

Source: Thurston, Herbert. “Easter Controversy.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 10 Jul. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm.

Do you celebrate Easter on Sunday?

I believe this was also a matter of discipline.

Regarding the Rebaptism of Heretics:*

“Probably when it was seen at Rome that the East was largely committed to the same wrong practice, the question was tacitly dropped. It should be remembered that, though Stephen had demanded unquestioning obedience, he had apparently, like Cyprian, considered the matter as a point of discipline.”

Source: Chapman, John. “St. Cyprian of Carthage.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 10 Jul. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm.
Yes, I apologize, for “hubris” was too strong a word, especially referring to popes of Rome who we share as orthodox and many we share as Saints of the Church. Forgive me, it was not very Christian.

But I was referring mainly to the fact that Pope Victor was rebuked heartily for his excommunication of all the eastern churches, not necessarily his opinions on quartodecimanism, and his excommunication never stood with any authority. And in the case of Pope Stephan, I was referring to St. Cyprian’s strong rebuke of his rebaptism ideal (the Orthodox still accept heretics by chrismation under many circumstances to this day, when it can be reasonably assured that the baptism was performed in correct trinitarian form). I was trying to point out that Catholics refer to the many undeniable instances of popes of Rome exerting authority over the whole Church, and Orthodox refer to the many undeniable instances of the Church not seeming to recognize or exercise a universal authority from Rome. So proof-texting never does us any good as it comes down to personal viewpoint. Either you feel that Rome had the authority because of its historical insistence on it in the face of “disobedience,” or you feel that the “disobedience” was the Church rebutting authority that wasn’t there. As a good Catholic you’ve come to believe the former, and as a good Orthodox I’ve come to believe the latter. I don’t think either position can be unequivocally proven from history.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The answer is pretty obvious - St. Paul is the one who preached the Gospel in Corinth, not St. Peter.

We know why they wrote to Paul, so your argument that is unsound.

Of course the argument is unsound, that was the point. “If Peter is the most authoritative apostle, as you believe, why didn’t they write to Peter instead of writing to Paul who is less authoritative?” Do you not see how ridiculous this line of questioning is? And yet you ask us to answer the same type of ridiculous question, “why did they write to Clement and not John or the bishop of some other city?” I am not actually making that argument Marduk. I am pointing out the flaw in the argument that you and others in this thread are using.

That’s a good reason. It is part of the reason for the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome.

But ultimately your Roman Church has forgotten about that, since it only banks its claim on Peter.

The most reasonable rejoinder that non-Catholics can offer (that there were provincial boundaries in the early Church) turns out to actually support the Catholic position. So you imagine these rather ludicrous possibilities, and somehow you think that this diminishes the force of the most obvious answer?

No, I am showing you how ludicrous your speculation into the motives of the Corinthians is. Without being able to read their letter to Rome, we have no idea why they did what they did or what they thought of the authority of Rome. But it seems that God has given you the ability to read minds of those who have already reposed. I suppose there’s no use in arguing with a mind-reader then.

The authoritative tenor of St. Clement’s letter and the obvious reverence shown to it afterwards says more than enough.

By this, I can only assume you mean the passage near the end where they write: “If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us…” But what could this passage mean. Are they declaring that this epistle should be regarded as scripture? No, that seems unlikely. For if the bishop of Rome possesses this power, why has it never been exercised again? And secondly, why do we not consider this epistle to be scripture if they possessed this power? But it seems that they write this because they have based their arguments on words taken from the God-breathed Scriptures and interpreted through the Church of Rome. Or perhaps they even believed that their solution to the Corinthians’ problem was inspired by God. But what then does this saying express except confidence that they are correct?