Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[TrueLight]

I received my book!
Will start reading soon

How far are into the book are you? Who recommended it to you?

 

[ConstantineTG]

How far are into the book are you? Who recommended it to you?

Halfway through the second essay. The first one is about St. Peter’s role in the Church as seen from Scripture.

 

[Diak]

Afanasiev’s essay is my favorite in that book as he in particular laments the effects of the lack of primacy in regards to the problems with jurisdictionalism. I will never forget his conclusion: “It is enough simply to say that Peter stood in a place apart among the apostles, and that his ministry was unique…” and later “It is impossible to construct a universal ecclesiology without admitting the idea of primacy”.

 

[mardukm]

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?

I think what is ridiculous was the attempt to shift the focus of the discussion to a matter that is not even an issue. No one asks why the Corinthians wrote to Paul instead of Peter. It’s just a given that since Paul established the Corinthian Church, Paul should be writing to them. But it IS a legitimate question to ask why the Corinthian Church should write to a Church that St. Paul did not establish when they could have more readily appealed to the Church of Athens, the Metropolitan center of that Roman province of which Corinth was a part, and which had a line of succession immediately related to St. Paul.

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?”

It’s not a ridiculous question. Your comparison between Peter and Paul, on the one hand, and the Church of Rome and the Church of Athens, on the other, is way off base. We know the answer to why Paul was the one to write to Corinth – because he established that Church. For you to speculate that we do not know the reason why Paul wrote to Corinth is what is ultimately ludicrous. On the other hand, why the Church of Corinth should appeal to a Petrine Church instead of another more readily accessible Pauline Church (the Church of Athens) is a legitimate question to ask (not to mention that the Church of Athens was the metropolitan Church of the Roman province of which Corinth was a part). You don’t like the obvious answer, so you are compelled to imagine these fantastic scenarios in a failed attempt to utilize an argumentum ad absurdum.

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.

The flaw was your comparison between Peter and Paul, on the one hand, and the Church of Rome and the Church of Athens, on the other.

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

Perhaps you are confusing the prestige of a Church with Apostolic Succession. In case you labor under some false impression – St. Paul did not begin the succession of bishops in Rome. The focus on Peter is the Apostolic Succession; the focus on Peter and Paul is with respect to the historic prestige of the Church of Rome.

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.

Perhaps what is ludicrous is that instead of admitting the weakness of the Orthodox argument regarding the delineated jurisdiction of Rome, you try to shift the focus of the discussion by making a comparison that is not even valid.

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?

I’m surprised that you are not aware that the Catholic Church teaches that the charism of inspiration ended with the death of the last Apostle? Infallibility is not inspiration - but I guess that just demonstrates the level of misunderstanding that non-Catholics have about the doctrine of infallibility.

And secondly, why do we not consider this epistle to be scripture if they possessed this power?

You presume they possessed a power that the Catholic Church never claims. That’s a rhetorical error called “proving to much.”

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.

I would agree with that.

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?

Are you injecting infallibility into this matter? I wouldn’t go that far. I believe the issue with the Conrinthian Church was a matter of discipline, not doctrine (though there are other doctrinal matters covered in the Letter).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Marduk, you should know that asking such a question is a specious method of argumentation. The question of why the Corinthians wrote to Rome, if the bishop of Rome was not considered to be the leading bishop of Christianity is specious argumentation because it presents a misleading false dilemma such that if my explanation (let’s say I argue that they threw darts at a map) is not satisfactory, then your explanation will either be shown to be more plausible or true outright. But that does not logically follow: both explanations could very well be false. I do not need to give any explanation for why the Corinthians wrote to Rome in order to cast doubt upon the plausibility of your claim that the letter of Clement reflects a jurisdictional primacy of the Roman bishop.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Marduk, you should know that asking such a question is a specious method of argumentation. The question of why the Corinthians wrote to Rome, if the bishop Rome was not considered to be the leading bishop of Christianity is specious argumentation because it presents a misleading false dilemma such that if my explanation (let’s say I argue that they threw darts at a map) is not satisfactory, then your explanation will either be shown to be more plausible or true outright. But that does not logically follow: both explanations could very well be false. I do not need to give any explanation for why the Corinthians wrote to Rome in order to cast doubt upon the plausibility of your claim that the letter of Clement reflects a jurisdictional primacy of the Roman bishop.

Is there a bishop of Corinth at this time? Maybe the clue is in that question.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Is there a bishop of Corinth at this time? Maybe the clue is in that question.

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.

 

[LionHeart777]

Is there a bishop of Corinth at this time? Maybe the clue is in that question.

I think that the laity “ejected” all the clergy so I don’t see how it would matter; there was a mutiny if I understand the situation correctly.

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

I always assumed that answer was taken for granted.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

From what I have learned, they are separate although the presbyters initially didn’t have the priestly functions they have today.

I think that the laity “ejected” all the clergy so I don’t see how it would matter; there was a mutiny if I understand the situation correctly.

It would matter because they would appeal to Rome because they have no bishop of their own and not because the Roman bishop was above their own bishop.

 

[LionHeart777]

From what I have learned, they are separate although the presbyters initially didn’t have the priestly functions they have today.

**
It would matter because they would appeal to Rome because they have no bishop of their own and not because the Roman bishop was above their own bishop**.

(emphasis mine)

Ok. But even for argument’s sake, if they did not have a Bishop (I don’t agree), what makes you think they wouldn’t have revolted against him too since they had revolted against the (for arguments sake) Priests and Deacons?

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

 

[ConstantineTG]

(emphasis mine)

Ok. But even for argument’s sake, if they did not have a Bishop (I don’t agree), what makes you think they wouldn’t have revolted against him too since they had revolted against the (for arguments sake) Priests and Deacons?

Well, probably that too. If they do not want their own bishop for one reason or another, they can appeal to another one. But again, that is not an argument for primacy. You appeal to another jurisdiction just because you can’t trust your own.

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

Who knows. But if we don’t know what answer, why do we assume immediately that is points towards primacy? Maybe going to Rome is easier. Maybe they trust the bishop more. Maybe someone recommended the bishop of Rome to be a fair and just man. Why does it have to be, “oh, we don’t know, so maybe its primacy and supremacy,”?

 

[Nine_Two]

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

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

 

[LionHeart777]

Well, probably that too. If they do not want their own bishop for one reason or another, they can appeal to another one. But again, that is not an argument for primacy. You appeal to another jurisdiction just because you can’t trust your own.

Who knows. But if we don’t know what answer, why do we assume immediately that is points towards primacy? Maybe going to Rome is easier. Maybe they trust the bishop more. Maybe someone recommended the bishop of Rome to be a fair and just man. Why does it have to be, “oh, we don’t know, so maybe its primacy and supremacy,”?

(emphasis mine)

I think for Catholics, it is another link in the chain…

 

[LionHeart777]

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/RomanEmpire_117.svg

I think the bigger picture (no pun intended) is that Rome wasn’t exactly close (in comparison to other churches)

(sorry for the obnoxiously big visual aid )

 

[ConstantineTG]

(emphasis mine)

I think for Catholics, it is another link in the chain…

Isn’t it presumptuous if no direct evidence is available?

I think the bigger picture (no pun intended) is that Rome wasn’t exactly close (in comparison to other churches)

(sorry for the obnoxiously big visual aid )

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

 

[IanGE]

I googled “who was the first pope?” and there are several answers. Google with care, though: it might shake your faith. According to Acts, James, John’s brother was the first head of the church in Jerusalem and was executed by Herod, for which Herod died of a diet of worms (sorry, bad joke!). Jesus’ brother, James, then became head of the church in Jerusalem. When Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, James was still head of the church - IN JERUSALEM. James and the church elders in Jerusalem must have breathed sighs of relief, at the death of these two troublemakers with their Gentile evangelisation. But not for long, Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 and everyone kicked out in the final diaspora. The head office of the church HAD to move to Gentile territory but I’m not sure when it centred on Rome.
Constantine built a new city, Constantinople, named after him. He meant to establish Rome as the political and power centre of the Empire, with Constantinople the religious centre for his establishment of Christianity. I don’t know when the Church in Rome gained precedence, but Bishop Eusebius mentions the church in Rome as having pre-eminence. BTW, I railed at Eusebius’ scathing comments about “tongue-speakers” and thought this an early reference of rejection of the Holy Spiritism by the church. I humbly apologise, Eusebius was an Arian bishop and the Arians refused to accept the divinity of the Holy Spirit and, I believe, Jesus: placing Him as, yes, the Son of God, promoted through His supreme sacrifice but still still subservient to the One God. There are indications that Europe was subject to ARIAN evangelisation, which is troubling. But I am comforted by Jesus’ promise that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (My Church)”.

 

[LionHeart777]

Isn’t it presumptuous if no direct evidence is available?

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

Well, I don’t know if it is presumptuous or not. I certainly think one has a right (maybe even a duty) to look at the evidence and try and determine the most plausible explanation. I tend to look at it as corroborative and/or circumstantial evidence. Like I said, another link in the chain… I see it as another situation where the Pope understood his prerogatives. I came across this quote from what I believe is the book you are reading on which I believe is in reference to Pope St. Clement’s “Epistle to the Corinthians”:

The following quote is I believe from “Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff: ‘The Primacy of Peter’ Ch. 4, pg. 92 (c. 1992)” (according to the footnote found after it):

The epistle is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth’s eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches… Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument. [1]

Source: matt1618.freeyellow.com/papalprimacy.html (emphasis removed)

I will point out that not everything written by a Catholic appears to agree that Corinth petitioned Rome. The author for the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article “Pope St. Clement I” writes: “The Church of Corinth had been led by a few violent spirits into a sedition against its rulers. No appeal seems to have been made to Rome, but a letter was sent in the name of the Church of Rome by St. Clement to restore peace and unity.”

Source: Chapman, John. ‘Pope St. Clement I.’ The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 23 Jul. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm. (emphasis mine)

Now, I disagree with the above conclusion. I suppose that according to this view though, one might see even stronger evidence of the Pope understanding his prerogatives since he was not even consulted.

About drawing conclusions based on the distances, I suppose I’ll reiterate: I certainly think one has a right (maybe even a duty) to look at the evidence and try and determine the most plausible explanation.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

Marduk, you should know that asking such a question is a specious method of argumentation. The question of why the Corinthians wrote to Rome, if the bishop of Rome was not considered to be the leading bishop of Christianity is specious argumentation because it presents a misleading false dilemma such that if my explanation (let’s say I argue that they threw darts at a map) is not satisfactory, then your explanation will either be shown to be more plausible or true outright. But that does not logically follow: both explanations could very well be false.

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.

I do not need to give any explanation for why the Corinthians wrote to Rome in order to cast doubt upon the plausibility of your claim that the letter of Clement reflects a jurisdictional primacy of the Roman bishop.

Well, I never claimed that the letter of Clement reflects a jurisdictional primacy. In fact, as I’ve already expressed several times in this and other threads, I don’t believe the notion of legal ecclesiastical jurisdiction (potestas) existed at this early stage in the Church. What is assumed from the letter is an auctoritas (i.e., authority by virtue of honor and respect) of the Church of Rome that no other Church equalled by virtue of not only its Petrine succession, but its prestige as the place of martyrdom of the two greatest Apostles, Sts. Peter and Paul. To repeat I’ve never argued a unviersal potestas (i.e., jurisdiction), but rather a universal auctoritas.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Is there a bishop of Corinth at this time? Maybe the clue is in that question.

St. Apollos (mentioned in the Bible) is traditionally regarded as the first bishop of Corinth. There is no reason to doubt that the apostolic succession continued in Corinth. Bishops may have been recognized simply as the “leading presbyter” in those days, which would account for the lack of reference to the title of “bishop” in the earliest manuscripts.

Blessings,
Marduk