I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
When I’m not so tired, I’ll start yet another thread on this, but in NCF.
- Status
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
This is the Vatican version of the story. We don’t see that in the Bible, nor early centuries. In particular, St. James presides over Jerusalem with no reference to St. Peter. Antioch, however does not act without reference to Jerusalem. We see Rome excercizing some authority over Corinth, and Antioch over the Churches of Asia, but the Churches of Asia seem to huddle around Ephesus, especially during the Paschal controversy. Alexandria had only one bishop, but the bishops of the Pentapolis had gravitated towards it, as it did in the secular world.
The only place that resembles this model is Alexandria (even Rome doesn’t), but the ECF commented on how odd Alexandria was in this.
Of course you are assuming the Petrine supremacy, and reading it back. Or do you have some documentation of this thesis from the sources?
Of course, the last point is the point in question.
A
adstrinity
Guest
From another one of my posts on another thread on this site:
In the NAB text, Acts 15:19, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,”
From, “Upon This Rock,” By Stephen K. Ray, page 54, footnote 72: "Acts 15:1, 6-7, 12-15,28. Many have used this passage in an attempt to invalidate Peter’s primacy by drawing attention to James as having the “final word”, but this interpretation is sadly misguided. Hugh Pope writes, “Now what is there in this episode which runs counter to Peter’s primacy of jurisdiction? Is it not rather in fullest conformity with it? St. James is the bishop of the city, yet not only does Peter speak first–he settles the question; St… James endorses what he says and simply provides a practical way of meeting the difficulty which has arisen” (“The Papacy in teh New Testament”, in Lattey, Papacy, 23). “You’re right in saying that [James] went beyond Peter’s decision, but, he was not decreeing or deciding as Peter had done. He states, to begin with, that it is his judgement. Peter didn’t speak for himself; he spoke for the whole Church. What James added had nothing to do with the doctrinal decision which had [already] been settled [by Peter]” (Daniel W. Martin, The Church of the Scriptures [St. Louis, Mo.: Confraternity Home Study Service, 1959], 83). Peter’s theological pronouncement was the watershed of the council; Paul gave testimony; and James concludes with pastoral, practical implementation. St. John Chrysostom writes, “See how Paul speaks after Peter, and no one restrains: James waits and starts not up, for he (Peter) is was to whom it had been entrusted the government (primacy)” (Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33 in Berington and Kirk, Faith of Catholics, 2:34). Though papal opponents often cite this passage as a proof text for sola Scriptura, asserting that James goes to the Bible alone for his summary, it is interesting to note that James quotes two authorities as he summarizes the proceedings: Peter and the Old Testament–“Symeon has related” and “with this the words of the prophets agree” (Acts 15:14-15).
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
And it is to his city that they, including St. Peter, come. St. Peter, as Galatians shows us, was in Antioch. If Peter is what Ray is making out, why didn’t St. Paul stay there and ask St. Peter (Gal. 2:11 tells us).
Then why do they keep talking?
The text doesn’t say St. Peter decreed or decided anything. Read again.
begging the question.
except the doctrinal decision
begging the question again.
A
adstrinity
Guest
Thank you for showing us how the Eastern Orthodox view this.And it is to his city that they, including St. Peter, come. St. Peter, as Galatians shows us, was in Antioch. If Peter is what Ray is making out, why didn’t St. Paul stay there and ask St. Peter (Gal. 2:11 tells us).
Then why do they keep talking?
The text doesn’t say St. Peter decreed or decided anything. Read again.
begging the question.
except the doctrinal decision
begging the question again.
We’ve brought this up many a time, maybe you can answer. Since St. John Chrysostom was not in communion most of his life with Rome, and probably when he wrote this, what is it’s value for the Vatican’s supremacy?
St. John also says:
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” [note: the “pope’s” word is not enough]. But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old. For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion…After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up. (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc.Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxiii.html
st. John has explained that.
Clearly I, personally, still hold to Peter speaks first at the Church council and settles the matter and St. James agrees with him, but, thank you for showing that it can be interpreted a different way for those who wish to view it. You are providing what some of us in the West do not see.As for the other questions, I know they were directed at Ray and not me, so I wont deign to discuss them.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Allow me to repost something on related matters:Thank you for showing us how the Eastern Orthodox view this.
A
adstrinity
Guest
Isa, if one reads the NAB Bible (and many from this forum may), these are the notes we get. Letting you know.
[1-10] Paul’s second journey to Jerusalem, according to Galatians, involved a private meeting with those of repute (Gal 2:2). At issue was a Gentile, Titus, and the question of circumcision, which false brothers (Gal 2:4) evidently demanded for him. Paul insists that the gospel he preaches (Gal 2:2; cf Gal 1:9, 11) remained intact with no addition by those of repute (Gal 2:6); that Titus was not compelled to accept circumcision (Gal 2:3); and that he and the reputed pillars in Jerusalem agreed on how each would advance the missionary task (Gal 1:7-10). Usually, Gal 1:1-10 is equated with the “Council of Jerusalem,” as it is called, described in Acts 15. See the notes on Acts 15:6-12, 13-35, the latter concerning the “decree” that Paul does not mention.
The Notes on Acts’ passages from the NAB Bible:
3 [6-12] The gathering is possibly the same as that recalled by Paul in Gal 2:1-10. Note that in Acts 15:2 it is only the apostles and presbyters, a small group, with whom Paul and Barnabas are to meet. Here Luke gives the meeting a public character because he wishes to emphasize its doctrinal significance (see Acts 15:22).
6 [13-35] Some scholars think that this apostolic decree suggested by James, the immediate leader of the Jerusalem community, derives from another historical occasion than the meeting in question. This seems to be the case if the meeting is the same as the one related in Gal 2:1-10. According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lev 18), all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews. Luke seems to have telescoped two originally independent incidents here: the first a Jerusalem “Council” that dealt with the question of circumcision, and the second a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (see Acts 21:25 where Paul seems to be learning of the decree for the first time).
[1-10] Paul’s second journey to Jerusalem, according to Galatians, involved a private meeting with those of repute (Gal 2:2). At issue was a Gentile, Titus, and the question of circumcision, which false brothers (Gal 2:4) evidently demanded for him. Paul insists that the gospel he preaches (Gal 2:2; cf Gal 1:9, 11) remained intact with no addition by those of repute (Gal 2:6); that Titus was not compelled to accept circumcision (Gal 2:3); and that he and the reputed pillars in Jerusalem agreed on how each would advance the missionary task (Gal 1:7-10). Usually, Gal 1:1-10 is equated with the “Council of Jerusalem,” as it is called, described in Acts 15. See the notes on Acts 15:6-12, 13-35, the latter concerning the “decree” that Paul does not mention.
The Notes on Acts’ passages from the NAB Bible:
3 [6-12] The gathering is possibly the same as that recalled by Paul in Gal 2:1-10. Note that in Acts 15:2 it is only the apostles and presbyters, a small group, with whom Paul and Barnabas are to meet. Here Luke gives the meeting a public character because he wishes to emphasize its doctrinal significance (see Acts 15:22).
6 [13-35] Some scholars think that this apostolic decree suggested by James, the immediate leader of the Jerusalem community, derives from another historical occasion than the meeting in question. This seems to be the case if the meeting is the same as the one related in Gal 2:1-10. According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lev 18), all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews. Luke seems to have telescoped two originally independent incidents here: the first a Jerusalem “Council” that dealt with the question of circumcision, and the second a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (see Acts 21:25 where Paul seems to be learning of the decree for the first time).
R
ronyodish
Guest
Isa,
Peter being the head and spokesman of the Apostles is not merely a Vatican or Latin tradition. The Church of the East (us Mesopotamians) have always referred to Peter as the Resha daShleehe (Head of the Apostles). You yourself also mentioned that Peter was the Coryphaeus.
If you think about the head and body analogy, the head is the brains/eyes/ears/mouth/etc. of the body.
When this original universal model began to be played out in history among the successors, it did not always play out in accordance with the original model, and so you had early disagreements and schisms and so forth. But in general, there was a common recognition among the various Christians that Rome was the First See, because Peter, the head of the Apostles, and Paul, the Apostle to the gentiles, were martyred there.
Every bishop is the Protos of his eparchy, every Patriarch is the Protos of his Patriarchate, and the Pope of Rome is the Protos of all. This is taken from the model of Peter being the Protos or First of the Apostles. Jesus says that who ever is first among the Apostles must be the servant of all, and Peter is first on the recorded list of the Apostles.
Alexandria is not the only Church that had a Protos. Each See had a Protos. But some Sees had a stronger Protos, a stronger Patriarchate, and Alexandria was one such See. Another such strong Patriarchical See was at Seleucia-Ctesiphon, for example, at the Synod of Mar Joseph of 554, The Church condemned the interference of lay people in church affairs. If I’m not mistaken, this is unlike the Orthodox Church, where the lay people can participate in the deposing of a Patriarch (again, you can correct me on this if I’m mistaken).
I’ll just point to this article from the Assyrian Bishop Mar Bawai Soro, which has some useful information [the section before #3, from #2.e.(ii) to #3, relates specifically to this discussion]:
nineveh.com/Mar%20Bawai%20Letter%20to%20the%20holy%20synod.html
God bless,
Rony
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Calling Peter the head and spokeman of the Apostles is not a Vatican tradition: since it is Biblical, it is universal, even in Orthodoxy today. I was refering to reading supremacy into it.
That is exactly the point: the model was neither original, universal or the model. It works fine with Acts 1-2, but not Acts 15. While Rome, the captial’s See, was recognized as the preeminent see, it was not a case of a universal jurisidication being replicated on the local level from that template that resulted in the patriarchates.
No, there is no evidence that Peter and the Aposles being the template for the local Churches. It played no role, for instance, in the make up of the make up of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem under St. James the Brother of God, to whom we are told St. Peter defered in the founding of the Patriarchate.
It was the only Church that ONLY had a “protos.”
Yes, a bishop: he’s what makes a see, a see.
and a bigger metropolis. That was the primary factor.
It is interesting that you mention Seleucia-Ctesiphon, as it substantiates my point. If the development of ecclesiasology was was bases on this “protos” model, she would have been under Antioch, as she is the Patriarchate “of All the East.”
Yes, anything the Church does involves the Faithful.
I’ll have to get some time to give it a look.
R
ronyodish
Guest
Isa,
Since you agree with me that Peter is the head and spokesman of the Apostles, how do you understand this title? What does this title mean to the Orthodox?
In Acts 15, there was a debate, Peter spoke first and gave the correct position on the matter, then Paul and Barnabas contributed, and then James (as bishop of the city) makes a reference to Peter (Simeon), a reference to the Prophets, and gives a judgment that is in agreement with Peter’s and the Prophets’.
You have everyone contributing in chapter 15, including both the Protos of the Apostles (Peter) and the Protos of the city of Jerusalem (James), and there is agreement amongst each other. This is Catholicism: Peter and all the Apostles. In current Orthodoxy, you guys are missing the successor of the Protos of the Apostles, as well as, the successors of some of the Apostles (like the successor of St. Thomas for instance). Acts 15 works more with a Catholic model of the successor of Peter as being the Protos of the Bishops, than with the current Orthodox model of the successor of Andrew as being the Protos.
As far as universal jurisdiction and supremacy, the Catholic Church is open to a reformulation of these, as we are told in JPII’s Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (#95).
The way the role of the Pope to the all the Patriarchs and Bishops should be described to all non-Catholics as follows: The Pope is is the servant of all the Patriarchs and Bishops, a model, from which each Patriarch must be the servant of all his Bishops in his Patriarchate, and each Bishop must be the servant of all his priests in his Eparchy. The type of service is one of Christian love. This is how the Pope should be seen in his relationship to the Patriarchs and Bishops, and my favorite Papal title is: Servant of the Servants of God.
Seleucia-Ctesiphon was in hierarchical communion with Antioch (which was considered the “West” from our traditional CotE perspective), but in different empires, and with different Apostolic successions. Then, the CotE declared its independence from the “West” at the Synod of Dadisho’ in 424. But, it was already a Patriarchate by the time of this Synod, because more than a century earlier, Seleucia-Ctesiphon became a Patriarchate under the Catholicos Mar Papa bar Gaggai.
By the way, the quote that I mentioned earlier as being written by Mar Papa on post #31, which refers to the role of Peter among the Apostles, was actually written by the “Western” Fathers in support and on behalf of Mar Papa (not written by Mar Papa himself as I mistakenly stated earlier). It was a reply letter of the “Western” Fathers to Mar Papa, after he made his appeal to them, in order to support and establish him as the first Catholicos-Patriarch of all the Church of the Persian empire (the East).
And the model, on which the “Western” Fathers (including interestingly the Bishop of Edessa) based their reply letter, included these relationships: Mar Papa’s relationship to the Eastern Bishops was like that of teacher to students, father to children, master to servants, husband to a wive, and finally, the relation of Peter to the whole church (which has been my point all along). The “Western” Fathers argued in favor of a Patriarchate in the Persia empire precisely because they had in mind the model of Peter and the Apostles.
In later centuries, we see Mar Abdisho of the CotE explaining in his Nomocanons that “as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the church”.
This is where we see a relationship between the individual Patriarch to his Patriarchate in connection to the relationship of the Patriarch of Rome to all the Patriarchs, again, drawing from the model of Peter and the Apostles. Mar Abdisho was not a Latin theologian so that one can blame him for taking the “Vatican” position, rather, He was the last great theologian and canonist of the Church of the East. He understood very well how the model of Peter and the Apostles was reflected both in a universal sense (Patriarch of Rome to all the Patriarchs), as well as, the particular sense (Each Patriarch to his Patriarchate).
God bless,
Rony
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
That St. Peter spoke for the Church, and with the Church, but not to the Church as if he was above it.
St. Peter spoke for the Apostles as a Body, but he was not the source of their unity.
St. James is more than just the bishop of the city: Acts 15:2 makes it clear that the Apostles are still headquartered there, although St. Peter has already gone on to Antioch. And as Apostolic Tradition shows, there was a special position to Jerusalem,to which Tradition says the Lord personally appointed St. James.
this is where the protos template breaks down: St. James was not just a local bishop, and Jerusalem was not just any city. It is clear SS. Peter, Paul and Barnabas go up to Jerusalem for a reason, and the reason stated is the “Apostles and the elders” and their authority was there.
to return to the top point: it is not that St. Peter was the protos of the Apostles, and this model was replicated in various patriarchates. Rather the assembly of the Apostles acted as we see in Acts 15. As the Church spread, each Apostles acted in the name of, and as the extension of, the whole assembly of Apostles in each Church they founded. Later their successors, the bishops would gather in their own assemblies, out of which arose their heads, the patriarchs.
,
If this was such a necessary element, then the decison of the Council would have been in the name of “Cephas, the Apostles, the Elders and Brethren.” And Peter’s not missing: the Patriarch of Antioch and the Pope of Alexandria is in on everything we do.
This is the question we have: if St. Peter’s role must be passed down, what about the other Apostles? Who is Matthaias now? Where’s Matthew? It comes too close for my comfort to the Mormon polemic that it is the only “church” that has 12 Apostles and the 70.
Actually it is more the conciliar Orthodox model, as St. Peter neither calls the Council, makes its decision, validates it or promulgates it. And James, not he, presides.
That’s just it: despite what Ravenna says, the EP is not the protos in the sense you are saying. Nor was St. Peter. Nor for that matter St. James. The Orthodox are NOT those who are in communion with the EP. The EP is but one member of the communion, not its source.
Starting with Andrew, he has nothing to do with the union of the Orthodox communion. Often I have been told St. Andrew’s founding of the Church now of Constantinople is a myth. It’s not, but that’s not relevant. Constantinople’s position derives not from its founder (as does Rome, Alexandria and Jerusalem), but from the Church recognizing her as the new capital (the reason why Rome and Alexandria’s founders ended up there. Jerusalem was elevated, in contrast, by the Church solely on the merits of her founder and salvation history with NO reference to the secular order. Antioch is somewhat between). So the idea of St. Andrew at the Council of Jerusalem (if he was there) has no relevence to the question at hand.
Otherwise, the Patriarch of Jerusalem would have to be at all the Ecumenical Councils, and you have had a few councils you call ecumenical where he wasn’t.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Yes, we would say there has been improvement in this area.
In our ecclesiology, it would be more accurate to say the bishop is the servant of his diocese
riest, deacon and laity. The relationship of bishop to priest is diffrent from that of bishop to patriarch. The bishop derives nothing from the priest: they are but extensions of his authority. The bishops are NOT extensions of the patriarch’s authority: the bishops derive their authority from their patriarch only in the sense that the patriarch, by the Tradition of the Church and her canons, with his synod is the means and context in which a bishop is ordained into the episcopacy. On the other side, the Faithful (priests, deacons, laity) are the reason and context in which the bishop is ordained (in other would the successors of the Apostles has to send him to someone, namely his diocese). No ordinateion takes place if someone (even a layman) puts forward a valid objection. (Yes, it does happen).yes, the pentarchy had not formed. Ephesus was in a similar position, and got swallowed by Constantinople.
Which Fathers exactly?
Or of Rome and her empire?
Since the CotE wasn’t in communion with Rome, this would be a rather odd thing to say.
as I am not familiar with Mar Abdisho, I cannot speak much on his opinions or intentions. Since he writes after the Crusades, however, I would like to know how much CotE patrisitcs and liturgics he was able to draw on to substantiate his views.
R
ronyodish
Guest
Isa,
I’ll be back in a week.
God bless,
Rony
I’ll be back in a week.
God bless,
Rony
R
ronyodish
Guest
Isa,
Some comments:
I see St. Peter as the universal visible head of the universal body (Church) on Earth. As head, he is not there merely as an honorary figure as some EO claim (that he is only first in honor), rather, it is more than honor, he performs his functions the way the human head functions in a human body, by providing sight, speech, hearing, and thought, for/with/to the body, because the head is not just for and with the body, but that it is on, above, and over the body.
I came across this EO information. I would like to know if you agree with Fr. Schmemann on the top paragraph of page 151:
books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&dq=The+Primacy+of+Peter:+Essays+in+Ecclesiology+and+the+Early+Church&pg=PP1&ots=ILoAIGRT3N&sig=gNOLpAo_C9kQA4WDdpw-Z9oBmbM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA151,M1
Your last sentence says: “out of which arose their heads”. I think the reason why the heads arose is because there was a universal model of a universal head with a universal body, which lead to the arising of the particular heads with particular bodies.
The Catholic Communion is much more a reflection of the Apostolic body of Acts 15 than the EO Communion due to not only the presence of the universal Protos (successor of Peter at Rome), but also the availability of successors descended from a larger portion of the Apostles.
Synodality is found in the Catholic Communion, as well as, in Orthodoxy, but Holy Orthodoxy has decapitated the universal visible Protos and Head from their Communion. It is a semi-universal body without the legitimate universal Head, lacking both the universal Head, as well as, the rest of the non-Byzantine Apostolic Churches.
In the universal Church, there has to be a universal Protos, a universal First. St. Peter was the universal First, the Protos of the Apostles, and his successor at Rome is the First or Protos of the successors of the Apostles, the bishops. I know that we have disagreement on this issue, but I can not give up on the teaching that the successor of Peter at Rome is the universal Protos and Head of all the Patriarchs and Bishops. This is something that I can not give up. I must maintain that the Pope of Rome hold a universal Primacy, a universal Headship.
“The Church of the East attributes a prominent role to Saint Peter and a significant place for the Church of Rome in her liturgical, canonical and Patristic thoughts. There are more than 50 liturgical, canonical and Patristic citations that explicitly express such a conviction”.
eter, the head of the apostles, upon whose truth our Savior built his faithful church, and Paul the elect, apostle and builder of the churches of Christ. By their prayers we find refuge, that mercies and compassion may be granted our souls.”
The Book of Khodra, “The Feast of Saints Peter and Paul: the Hymn of the Suba’a”, vol. 1
By the way Isa, your responses are quite deep theologically and historically, and which require lots of research on my behalf, so I’m sorry that I’m not giving you as much researched responses as I should.
God bless,
Rony
Some comments:
I don’t see it as an either/or. I agree that St. Peter spoke for the Church and with the Church, but I also agree with Mar Abdisho that St. Peter was put “over all the community”.
I see St. Peter as the universal visible head of the universal body (Church) on Earth. As head, he is not there merely as an honorary figure as some EO claim (that he is only first in honor), rather, it is more than honor, he performs his functions the way the human head functions in a human body, by providing sight, speech, hearing, and thought, for/with/to the body, because the head is not just for and with the body, but that it is on, above, and over the body.
I came across this EO information. I would like to know if you agree with Fr. Schmemann on the top paragraph of page 151:
books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&dq=The+Primacy+of+Peter:+Essays+in+Ecclesiology+and+the+Early+Church&pg=PP1&ots=ILoAIGRT3N&sig=gNOLpAo_C9kQA4WDdpw-Z9oBmbM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA151,M1
Specifically, this sentence:
“If the Church is a universal organism, she must have at her head a universal bishop as the focus of her unity and the organ of supreme power.”
Again, I don’t think there is necessarily an either/or here. I think there is a complementarity between the first sentence in your quote with the rest of the quote.
Your last sentence says: “out of which arose their heads”. I think the reason why the heads arose is because there was a universal model of a universal head with a universal body, which lead to the arising of the particular heads with particular bodies.
Neither the EO Patriarch of Antioch nor the EO Pope of Alexandria is the universal Protos and Head (which is the function of the Successor of Peter at Rome, who is not only the particular Protos of Rome and the West, but also the universal Protos of all). They are Particular Protos and Heads of Antioch and Alexandria. Their Catholic counterpart is likewise not the universal Protos and Head, but rather the Particular Protos and Head.
I’m not sure who right now are the successors of Matthew, Mathaias, and few of the other Apostles, cause I haven’t done enough research. Perhaps I should have rephrased my paragraph in this way:
The Catholic Communion is much more a reflection of the Apostolic body of Acts 15 than the EO Communion due to not only the presence of the universal Protos (successor of Peter at Rome), but also the availability of successors descended from a larger portion of the Apostles.
I disagree with this either/or perspective, setting up Peter against James. Peter certainly does make a doctrinal decision: In verse 7, after there was much debate, Peter stands up and teaches them the faith, and they become silent as Paul & Barnabas share their thoughts, and James concludes by agreeing with Peter, and by giving the Gentiles further instructions in verse 20.
Synodality is found in the Catholic Communion, as well as, in Orthodoxy, but Holy Orthodoxy has decapitated the universal visible Protos and Head from their Communion. It is a semi-universal body without the legitimate universal Head, lacking both the universal Head, as well as, the rest of the non-Byzantine Apostolic Churches.
In Orthodoxy, the EP is called the “First among Equals”. I disagree that the EP should have such a title. I see no reason based on the Deposit of Faith (Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition) for the successor of Andrew to have this title. I know the EP is not viewed by the Orthodox in the same way we view the Pope, but I also think that the EP should not have assumed this title, unless he wants to affirm it only within his Patriarchate, and not universally. I can accept the EP as “First among Equals” within his Patriarchate, but not in the universal Church.
In the universal Church, there has to be a universal Protos, a universal First. St. Peter was the universal First, the Protos of the Apostles, and his successor at Rome is the First or Protos of the successors of the Apostles, the bishops. I know that we have disagreement on this issue, but I can not give up on the teaching that the successor of Peter at Rome is the universal Protos and Head of all the Patriarchs and Bishops. This is something that I can not give up. I must maintain that the Pope of Rome hold a universal Primacy, a universal Headship.
Yeah, that’s correct. The Bishop must be the servant of his diocese, that is, priests, deacons, and laity.
Mar Papa wrote especially to Saada, bishop of Edessa. The reply letter came from the bishops in the Roman empire. I haven’t yet done enough research on the names (and whether or not their names were actually listed), but, generally, when the Church of the East in the Persian empire used to speak of the “Western” Fathers, they were referring to Antioch of the Roman empire.
Yes.
While at the time, the CotE was ecclesiastically independent of all the Churches in the “West”, nevertheless, Mar Abdisho saw in the universal Church, a West and an East, and considered the Pope of Rome to be over all the Patriarchs because of Peter having being set over all the community. I remember Fr. Michael J. Birnie (one of the ACotE priests of Bishop Mar Bawai Soro who came into full communion with the CC) wrote an online post about the understanding of Mar Abdisho on this, but I can’t at the moment remember the link.
I’m still in the process of studying the fathers, theology, liturgy, and synodical canons of my CotE, so I can’t at this time give you a whole lot of information, but the current Bishop Mar Bawai Soro states the following:
“The Church of the East attributes a prominent role to Saint Peter and a significant place for the Church of Rome in her liturgical, canonical and Patristic thoughts. There are more than 50 liturgical, canonical and Patristic citations that explicitly express such a conviction”.
nineveh.com/Mar%20Bawai%20Letter%20to%20the%20holy%20synod.html]
Here is a liturgical text, taken from the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, courtesy of brother Anthony Garia:
“Blessed are you, O Rome, renowned city of kings, handmaid of the heavenly Bridegroom! For the two true preachers are laid up in you as in a harboreter, the head of the apostles, upon whose truth our Savior built his faithful church, and Paul the elect, apostle and builder of the churches of Christ. By their prayers we find refuge, that mercies and compassion may be granted our souls.”The Book of Khodra, “The Feast of Saints Peter and Paul: the Hymn of the Suba’a”, vol. 1
youth.maryosip.org/papers/pprs_anthony_01.html]
By the way Isa, your responses are quite deep theologically and historically, and which require lots of research on my behalf, so I’m sorry that I’m not giving you as much researched responses as I should.God bless,
Rony
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Of course, as I believed you also pointed out, we disagree.
I find the backbone a more apt analogy.
I’m more interested in this Question
Is this ecclesiology acceptable from the Orthodox point of view? The question may seem naive. The Orthodox Church has rejected as heretical
at which point the google book cuts off. There’s a swollen, flooding river between me and my own copy, so I’ll have to wing it. In the quote you give, Fr. Schmemann is giving what he sees as the Vatican view, given its postulates, not his own (Fr. Schemann, I admit, is not always clear on these things). He goes on to argue the ecclesiasiology of the Eucharist. At the beginning of the chapter he outilines the issues of different types of primacy, and differences even within each type.
On pages 147-8 he goes on to an, to my mind, insurmountable problem for the idea of Vatican style primacy: the is no order in the ordained priesthood corresponding to “pontiff,” and no charism is conferred in the Church except by a Holy Mystery. To our mind, the fact that a bishop elected pope of Rome takes his office without an ordination is proof that the pope’s charism is that of any bishop, albeit one different in the order the Church, not God, has set up. In other words, the papacy is of ecclesiastical, not divine, origin.
Of course, that is what is at question: is there such a thing as a universal protos. As we see SS Peter, Paul and James each exercising a primacy in Acts, but without a universal protos among them, nor each imitating the other, I would say no.
Except for Thomas (and I’m not even sure of that) I don’t think the Vatican can summon more successors from a larger portion of the Apostles. And the large number is quite recent. Before Florence, they could only summon St. Peter, I believe, i.e. the Vatican itself (the Maronites and Italo-Albanians, whenever they joined, won’t change that). No one conected to St. Thomas submittted to the Vatican before 1599, and that was from a combination of isolation and Portuguese conquest.
Ecumenical Councils and Pan Orthodox Councils (and even Resident (Endimousa for the Hellenocenric) Syonds of the EP) go more according to Acts 15 than the councils the Vatican calls. St. Peter didn’t call the Council of Jerusalem, he went to it, it didn’t come to him, and he didn’t make the final pronouncement (his part is more like the part played by the “Testimonies of the Catholic World” and the “Mind of the Bishops” in Ineffabilis Deus than the “Papal Sanctions”
newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm
And Acts 8:14-unless an example of a Pope of Rome being sent can be produced-presents an insurmountable obstacle to the Vatican’s take on Acts.
Supremacy worries about either/or. Conciliarity does not.
He gives his testimony and his mind, but such do not a pronouncement nor decision make. There is no special mention of him when “they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them [as Galatians shows, St. Peter was in Antioch, and Acts shows he went up] should go up to Jerusalem,” nor when “the Apostles and elders came together to consider this matter,” nor when “it pleased the Apostles and the elders, with the whole Church to send chosen men.”
no, gives his testimony and mind, just as the other bishops did, according to Ineffibilus Deus.
if Rome had spoken, why was there more to say?
no, he stated the agreement between St. Peter’s testimony and mind with Scripture, again a la Ineffilibus Deus.
He concludes by making the dogmatic decision.
No special mention of St. Peter in the “Apostolic Constitution” of Acts 15:23-9, sent in the name of "the Apostles, the elders and the brethren [cf. bishops, clergy and laity of Orthodox Councils], nor his testimony nor his mind. The only thing that stands out is is St. James’ "further instructions in verses 28-9. No indication that St. Peter sends Judas and Silas (v. 27).
That it seems that the Orthodox Catholic Church is missing the rest of the non-Constantinopolitan Churches is Constantinople’s fault, I admit, in her hand in supressing the rites of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, but those Churches are still Orthodox Apostolic Churches since the time of the Apostles.
The Vatican having other Apostolic Churches is of very recent vintage: besides the Maronites, if you count them for Antioch (1182, but not integrated until several centuries later), there were none even after the council of Trent of 1564, when the Latin church took its present shape.
Were it not for isolation in the East, and the shortness of time, I have no doubt that Latinization would have assimilated all the Easterners out of existence (as it did with the Italo-Greeks: the Italo-Albanians are not a continuation but an appropriation), as effectively as Constantinople did the other “sui juris” (to borrow a term) nature of the other patriarchates.
The Vatican’s patriarchate of Alexandria didn’t come into being until 1895. To this day she has no Apostolic roots in the Mother Church of Jerusalem: her Latin Patriarch was transplanted by the Crusaders, although appending Melkite Jerusalem to Antioch at least resembles the situation after the Apostles. Although the Vatican present set up serves many useful purposes (I think, for instance, the Chaldeans will be the only survival of the Church of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and I believe that it is valuable that the Maronites have survived), this service has its limits. Judging Vatican claims (even when voiced by those who accept them in the East) on the construction of a Church nearly two millenia old on the basis of only less than a half a millenium experience makes no sense to me.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Wait, right there: I cannot overestimate the importance of this point: St. Andrew has NOTHING to do with the primacy of the EP(see page 69 of The Primacy of Peter, which you linked above). This lies at the root and core of the difference between the Vatican and us on the primacy.
Although the image of St. Andrew was played up in polemics after the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders and the usurpation by a Latin patriarch of the title EP (see page 78 of “The Primacy of Peter”), and is played up in the goings on today between the EP and the Vatican, it played no role in the rise in Constantinople, although he gave Constantinople her Apostolic Succession upon which the Church grafted the primacy. Nor did he play the role for the Third Rome of Moscow that Peter plays (or the Vatican plays up) for Old Rome, although it did its part to giving luster to the claim. As “The Primacy” page 79 shows, the Orthodox are not suffering from the malady that Corinth did, I Corin. 1:10-13 which we diagnose in the Vatican.
The Truth be told, Jerusalem by Scripture and Tradition had the best claim to primacy, but she was in Fifth place, and even this required action by the Church to elevate her from suffregan of Antioch to Patriarchate in her own right.
The Faith deposites the role of Constantinople (and Old Rome) in the canons, not the Definitions of Faith. The need of the Vatican to find it is what has lead to searching for precedent in the OT (hence the OP. Btw, a similar process happens in Shi’ism in Islam, for similar reasons).
The divide comes, as “The Primacy of Peter” discusses, to a different concept of Apostolicity, which the EP alluded to, in a more honest moment, in his comments on our “ontological difference
That’s the Turk’s position, btw.
And the title was given (Alexandria was given the title pope, which Rome later took. Rome was only given the pagan title “pontiff.”) when it actually was meaningful, when Constantinople (not Rome, which was village again by then) was at the center of the Christian world, and of universal importance, shown by the fact to this day that ALL Ecumenical Councils took place in her Patriarchate, three (including the one which wrote the Universal Creed) in the city itself. None took place in Rome.
As every patriarch is first among equals in his patriarchate, this is meaningless.
Given your thoughts on this, how do you feel about the title “Catholicos?”
So the Vatican claims. The Early Church did quite well without one. As Barlaam showed (“The Primacy of Peter” pp. 83-4), we do not see the Pope of Rome acting over the bishops of the universal Church as we see the Vatican today.
Vatican I requires it. Scripture and Tradition do not.
Given the language, that would make sense.
The is a great book, “From Empire to Commonwealth: the Consequences of Monotheism in Late Antiquity” Garth Fowden, which has a chapter “the world’s two eyes” which posits the Romans and the Sassanids as two parallel universes, which would in this case necissitate a universal primate (a role the catholocos of the East Syrians did assume).
Here is a liturgical text, taken from the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, courtesy of brother Anthony Garia:
“Blessed are you, O Rome, renowned city of kings, handmaid of the heavenly Bridegroom! For the two true preachers are laid up in you as in a harbor
Yes, we have similar hymns etc.
Not at all. I always look forward to thoughtful and rich content of your posts.
R
ronyodish
Guest
Hi Isa,
I will be off of this forum for some months. Here are my final comments on this thread. I won’t be able to respond back to any counter comments. You are truly a worthy opponent
My perspective on ecclesiological Communion involves three things:
For instance, in the Chaldean Church of the East, in the Diaconate, there are Deacons, and there is the Head Deacon. In the Priesthood, there are Priests, Chorbishops (despite the name, these are actually Priests who are delegated by the Bishop to the villages & suburbs), and the Archdeacon (despite the name, this is actually the Head Priest). In the Episcopacy, there are Bishops, Archbishops, and the Catholicos-Patriarch.
Going back to the Papacy, I do not see it as merely of ecclesiastical origin, and here is one small example from Scripture as to why:
In the Gospel, Jesus says to the Apostles that the first and greatest among them shall be the servant of all. We see here that Jesus makes a distinction on the one hand between the Apostles as a whole, and on the other hand, the first and greatest Apostle among them. This one Apostle’s greatness must be manifested in service to all.
By Scripture and Tradition, the first and greatest Apostle was Peter, and this designation towards him is not merely of ecclesiastical origin, but by origin of Christ’s mandate. The Papacy in Rome is a succession of the service ministry of Peter among the apostles. It is not a succession of merely an ecclesiastically originated ministry.
By the way, thanks for the clarification comments on Fr. Schmemann.
By the way, Supremacy is a term that has a usage in some Oriental Churches. The Armenian Patriarch, for example, is called the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of all Armenians. The difference with Rome is that the Pope of Rome is universally Supreme, not just with all Romans, whereas the other Oriental Patriarchs are Supreme only within their Patriarchates.
Again, Supremacy must be understood as service and not as tyranny. The Armenian Patriarch serves everyone in his Patriarchate, whereas the Roman Pope serves not only his Patriarchate, but all the Patriarchs. He serves all the Patriarchs because the Pope is, as Mar Abdisho confirms, the Head of the Patriarchs. The Supreme Armenian Catholicos, on the other hand, is not the Head of the Patriarchs, and so his Headship and his Supremacy is exercised only within his Patriarchate.
As far as Conciliarity, the current E. Orthodox Conciliar model is missing the universal First and Head of the universal Council (the Pope of Rome), therefore, I see it as an either/or. However, when I look at the Catholic Collegial model, I see both the First and Head of the College (the Pope of Rome), as well as, the Body of the College (the Bishops), therefore, a both/and.
I will be off of this forum for some months. Here are my final comments on this thread. I won’t be able to respond back to any counter comments. You are truly a worthy opponent
My perspective on ecclesiological Communion involves three things:
- Unity on the Apostolic Faith (Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition)
- Unity on the Holy Mysteries (the Eucharist being the source and pinnacle of all the Mysteries).
- Unity on the hierarchy of the Head and Body of the Bishops (Bishop of Rome and all Bishops).
I see the Papacy as originating in Christ’s service mission for Peter. While the Mystery of Holy Orders are three: Deaconite, Priesthood, and Episcopate, there are ranks within each of the Orders:
For instance, in the Chaldean Church of the East, in the Diaconate, there are Deacons, and there is the Head Deacon. In the Priesthood, there are Priests, Chorbishops (despite the name, these are actually Priests who are delegated by the Bishop to the villages & suburbs), and the Archdeacon (despite the name, this is actually the Head Priest). In the Episcopacy, there are Bishops, Archbishops, and the Catholicos-Patriarch.
Going back to the Papacy, I do not see it as merely of ecclesiastical origin, and here is one small example from Scripture as to why:
In the Gospel, Jesus says to the Apostles that the first and greatest among them shall be the servant of all. We see here that Jesus makes a distinction on the one hand between the Apostles as a whole, and on the other hand, the first and greatest Apostle among them. This one Apostle’s greatness must be manifested in service to all.
By Scripture and Tradition, the first and greatest Apostle was Peter, and this designation towards him is not merely of ecclesiastical origin, but by origin of Christ’s mandate. The Papacy in Rome is a succession of the service ministry of Peter among the apostles. It is not a succession of merely an ecclesiastically originated ministry.
By the way, thanks for the clarification comments on Fr. Schmemann.
I guess we’ll just have to disagree on this one. It is a certain teaching in the Church of the East that Peter was the First and Head of the Apostles. The universal Protos is merely the First and Head of the Apostles, a role that the Church of the East ascribes to Peter, calling him the Resha daShleehe.
Supremacy, properly understood, must reflect a role of service to all. The Pope is not there as a tyrant. He is there to confirm his brother Bishops in the Apostolic Faith, not just the brethren in his Patriarchate, but the brethren in all the world (universally). He must have the prerogative of receiving appeals from whichever Bishop in the world that needs his assistance.
By the way, Supremacy is a term that has a usage in some Oriental Churches. The Armenian Patriarch, for example, is called the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of all Armenians. The difference with Rome is that the Pope of Rome is universally Supreme, not just with all Romans, whereas the other Oriental Patriarchs are Supreme only within their Patriarchates.
Again, Supremacy must be understood as service and not as tyranny. The Armenian Patriarch serves everyone in his Patriarchate, whereas the Roman Pope serves not only his Patriarchate, but all the Patriarchs. He serves all the Patriarchs because the Pope is, as Mar Abdisho confirms, the Head of the Patriarchs. The Supreme Armenian Catholicos, on the other hand, is not the Head of the Patriarchs, and so his Headship and his Supremacy is exercised only within his Patriarchate.
As far as Conciliarity, the current E. Orthodox Conciliar model is missing the universal First and Head of the universal Council (the Pope of Rome), therefore, I see it as an either/or. However, when I look at the Catholic Collegial model, I see both the First and Head of the College (the Pope of Rome), as well as, the Body of the College (the Bishops), therefore, a both/and.
I disagree. Again, it is not an either/or. His testimony/mind comes out as a doctrinal pronouncement/decision: Peter expresses the Apostolic Faith by stating in verse 11: “we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will”.
R
ronyodish
Guest
Continued…
Our Church of the East, for instance, remained orthodox in Faith and maintained the Apostolic succession despite our historical independence from the Church of Rome and the other Churches of the Roman Empire (since AD. 424), but we were isolated for a long time. We were a partial Body without the rest of the Body and without the Head. When we came back into full communion with Rome, we restored our Head, and rejoined the rest of the Body.
When I say that the current model of the Holy Catholic Communion of Churches of all the various traditions is a more faithful reflection of the Early Church than the current model of Holy Orthodoxy, I am principally referring to the original oneness intended by Christ for all His disciples, the oneness that was experienced before the 5th century schisms. In other words, the current Catholic model is an attempt and a desire to reflect again the model of the the 1st four centuries where both the successor of Peter the Head and the successors of the Body of the Apostles were living in peace and communion with one another, whereas the current E. Orthodox model is a reflection of the second millennium isolation of the E. Orthodox Churches from the Head Church and from the rest of the Apostolic Churches.
Also, just so you know, the Assyrian and Chaldean liturgical Creed differs from the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople on a few things. For example, one major difference is this: we don’t have this statement on the Holy Spirit in our Creed:
“Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets”
We of course believe the statement, but we do not actually have it in our Creed. As far as I’m aware, so far no E. Orthodox Christian has seriously bothered us yet on why it is “missing” from our Creed, cause I guess they’re just too busy squabbling with the Latins on the Filioque to notice us
The Apostles did not disagree with Peter. They all agreed with the statement: “we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus”. They had much debate in verse 7, but no more debate after the correct teaching was proclaimed by Peter. Paul, Barnabas, and James make speeches in agreement with what Peter has just proclaimed.
James’ decision seems to include both doctrinal and disciplinary things. Again, there is no disagreement with Peter. He agrees with the Head of the Apostles by making a decision/pronouncement in agreement with the decision/pronouncement of Peter.
I would say that it is more about the other Apostolic Churches recognizing the First and Head Church among them. When the Apostolic Churches are isolated and separated from the First and Head Church, though they remain as true and apostolic Churches, they loose the model of the hierarchy intended by Christ that includes both Peter and the Apostles.
Our Church of the East, for instance, remained orthodox in Faith and maintained the Apostolic succession despite our historical independence from the Church of Rome and the other Churches of the Roman Empire (since AD. 424), but we were isolated for a long time. We were a partial Body without the rest of the Body and without the Head. When we came back into full communion with Rome, we restored our Head, and rejoined the rest of the Body.
Latinization was a problem for a while. Unity and Uniformity went hand in hand in the olden days, but now, pluriformity is officially protected in the Catholic Communion. Latinized Eastern/Oriental Churches are called to restore their respective traditions.
The historical Apostolic Churches that fell out of full canonical communion with Rome were not heretical and were not lacking in Apostolic Succession. All Apostolic Churches are true Churches, built upon orthodox Faith and Apostolic Succession, before and after the schisms. When schisms occurred between the Head Church and the other Churches, some of the Churches recognized that they were isolated from the Head Church and desired to restore the original oneness intended by Jesus for all His disciples.
When I say that the current model of the Holy Catholic Communion of Churches of all the various traditions is a more faithful reflection of the Early Church than the current model of Holy Orthodoxy, I am principally referring to the original oneness intended by Christ for all His disciples, the oneness that was experienced before the 5th century schisms. In other words, the current Catholic model is an attempt and a desire to reflect again the model of the the 1st four centuries where both the successor of Peter the Head and the successors of the Body of the Apostles were living in peace and communion with one another, whereas the current E. Orthodox model is a reflection of the second millennium isolation of the E. Orthodox Churches from the Head Church and from the rest of the Apostolic Churches.
By the way, just so you know, Mar Abdisho of the Church of the East had a different way of listing the Sees. His “Pentarchy” was different from the common one of the Roman Empire. This is his list:
- Rome
- Alexandria
- Ephesus
- Antioch
- Babylon
Also, just so you know, the Assyrian and Chaldean liturgical Creed differs from the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople on a few things. For example, one major difference is this: we don’t have this statement on the Holy Spirit in our Creed:
“Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets”
We of course believe the statement, but we do not actually have it in our Creed. As far as I’m aware, so far no E. Orthodox Christian has seriously bothered us yet on why it is “missing” from our Creed, cause I guess they’re just too busy squabbling with the Latins on the Filioque to notice us
R
ronyodish
Guest
Continued…
If and when full communion is re-established between the Catholics and the Orthodox, I wouldn’t mind if the Ecumenical Patriarch calls himself
It’s not about the Vatican versus Scripture and Tradition, as if every “pro-Pope” statement must therefore be of Vatican origin and therefore anti-Scripture and anti-Tradition. The Church of the East highly values the Primacy of Peter among the rest of the Apostles and their Churches, as well as, the relationship Peter has with his successors in the Church of Rome. We look in Scripture and we see the strong role that Peter played as rock of the Church, holder of the keys, confirmer of the brethren, feeder of the sheep, and first of the Apostles, and we make a connection with Peter’s successors in Rome with the successors of the Apostles. It makes no sense to us for Peter to be called the Resha or Head of the Apostles in Tradition, if he does not actually exercise that Headship of ALL the Body of the Apostles universally scattered everywhere for the evangelization of all the people.
Yes, the Catholicos of the “East Syriac” Church of the East assumed a Primacy over all the East (East of the Euphrates river), which was made up of only one Patriarchate. There was a view held by the 9th century Patriarch Timothy the Great who maintained that ecclesial Primacy should be given to the Church of the East more than any other Church tradition because of the Wise men who came from the East (from Mesopotamia-Persia) bearing gifts, confessing, and believing in Christ before all others. Centuries later, we have the second major view of Mar Abdisho which lists the See of Rome as First in the universal Church due to Peter as Head of the Apostles and Paul as Teacher of the Nations.
The Catholic dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East did focus, in part, on whether two Primacies can be in full communion with each other (the Primacy of the Pope of Rome and the Primacy of the Catholicos of the Assyrian Church of the East).
Take care bro, and God bless,
Rony
Every Catholicos is the Catholicos of his Catholicosate, his Patriarchate. He Heads his particular Body, the Patriarchate, which makes up all his members, both near, and scattered all over the world. His service is to all, or the whole, of his Patriarchate. He does not have a universal Headship of all the Patriarchs like the Pope of Rome does.
If and when full communion is re-established between the Catholics and the Orthodox, I wouldn’t mind if the Ecumenical Patriarch calls himself
- First among Equals in his Patriarchal Church
- Second among Equals in the universal Church
My Church of the East tradition, as I showed on this thread via Mar Abdisho of Soba, already speaks of Rome as the First See and Head of the Patriarchs, and that the Patriarch of Rome has “authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the church”. He continues in the Nomocanon to say that he “who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema” (see link for source). As an Assyro-Chaldean, I can not take a position in contradiction to this position.
It’s not about the Vatican versus Scripture and Tradition, as if every “pro-Pope” statement must therefore be of Vatican origin and therefore anti-Scripture and anti-Tradition. The Church of the East highly values the Primacy of Peter among the rest of the Apostles and their Churches, as well as, the relationship Peter has with his successors in the Church of Rome. We look in Scripture and we see the strong role that Peter played as rock of the Church, holder of the keys, confirmer of the brethren, feeder of the sheep, and first of the Apostles, and we make a connection with Peter’s successors in Rome with the successors of the Apostles. It makes no sense to us for Peter to be called the Resha or Head of the Apostles in Tradition, if he does not actually exercise that Headship of ALL the Body of the Apostles universally scattered everywhere for the evangelization of all the people.
Thanks for the book recommendation
Yes, the Catholicos of the “East Syriac” Church of the East assumed a Primacy over all the East (East of the Euphrates river), which was made up of only one Patriarchate. There was a view held by the 9th century Patriarch Timothy the Great who maintained that ecclesial Primacy should be given to the Church of the East more than any other Church tradition because of the Wise men who came from the East (from Mesopotamia-Persia) bearing gifts, confessing, and believing in Christ before all others. Centuries later, we have the second major view of Mar Abdisho which lists the See of Rome as First in the universal Church due to Peter as Head of the Apostles and Paul as Teacher of the Nations.
The Catholic dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East did focus, in part, on whether two Primacies can be in full communion with each other (the Primacy of the Pope of Rome and the Primacy of the Catholicos of the Assyrian Church of the East).
Cool
Thanks. As I said earlier, you have been one of the most knowledgeable posters I’ve ever had to argue against. Thanks for frying my brains
Take care bro, and God bless,
Rony
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
This is false, check out what St. Fancis de Sales (1567-1622) says to the first generation of Protestants he was preaching to:
But is the commandment which in Isaias (xxii.) is given to Eliacim which is parallel in every particular with that which Our Lord gives to S. Peter. In it there is described the deposition of a sovereign-priest and governor of the Temple: * Thus saith the Lord God of hosts: go get thee into him that dwelleth in the tabernacle, to Sobna who is over the temple; and thou shalt say to him what dost thou here?* And further on: * I will depose thee.* See there the de position of one, and now the institution of the other. *And it. shall come to pass in that day that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, and I will, clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand : and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house David upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.
Could anything fit better than these two Scriptures? For: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven- is it not at least equivalent to: * I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias? And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell, &c. -does this not signify the same as: *I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand, and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Juda? * And what else is it to be the foundation or foundationstone of a family than to be there as father, to have the superintendence, to be governor there? And if one has had this assurance: I will lay the key of the house of David on his shoulder, the other has had no less, who had the promise: And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And if when he has opened no one shall shut, when he has shut no one shall open; so, when the other shall have loosened no one shall bind, when he shall have bound no one shall loosen.
*angelfire.com/ms/seanie/papacy/fds_pope3.html
*So this argument is over 500 years old, at the very least.
- Status