If the Papacy was really meant to be only honorary, then what about the Orthodox bishops?

[Harpazo]

So what the point of New Rome (Constantinople) and Third Rome (claimed by Russia) if its just honorific?

You answered your own question.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Cavaradossi]

Your post does not deal with the quotes from Pope Leo. Assuming my post does not suffice that Leo believed in the primacy of Peter, here is another one:

( Sermon III )

1. Peter, persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church which he accepted. For he was ordained before the rest in such a manner that as he was called the Rock, as he was declared the foundation, as he was constituted doorkeeper of the kingdom of Heaven, as he was appointed judge to bind and loose, whose judgments will retain their validity in Heaven, by all these mystical titles we might perceive the nature of his relationship to Christ.

And today he still more fully and effectually performs the office entrusted to him and carries out every part of his duty and his charge in Him and with Him by whom he was glorified. So if any act or decree of ours is righteous, if we obtain anything by our daily supplications from God’s mercy, it is his work and his merits, whose power lives in his see and whose authority is so high. For, dearly beloved, his confession won this reward, his confession inspired by God the Father in the apostle’s heart, which transcended all the uncertainty of human judgment and was endowed with the firmness of a rock that no assault could shake. Throughout the Church Peter still says daily: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” and every tongue which confesses the Lord is inspired by the leadership of his voice…

1. And so, dearly beloved, with reasonable obedience, we celebrate today’s festival in such a way that in my humble person he may be recognized and honored, on whom rests the care of all the shepherds, as well as the charge of the sheep commended to him. His dignity is not diminished by even so unworthy an heir. Hence the presence of my venerable brethren and fellow priests, as much desired and valued by me, will be still more sacred and precious if they will transfer the chief honor of this service, in which they have deigned to take part, to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see but also the primate of all bishops. When therefore we utter our exhortations in your ears, holy brethren, believe that he is speaking whose representative we are, because it is his warning that we give and nothing but his teaching that we preach

-http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/leo.htm

And if we’re going to be quoting Wikipedia articles, how about this one?:

"Dispute with Dioscorus of Alexandria

In 445, Leo disputed with Pope Dioscorus, St. Cyril’s successor as Pope of Alexandria, insisting that the ecclesiastical practice of his see should follow that of Rome on the basis that Mark the Evangelist, the disciple of Saint Peter and founder of the Alexandrian Church, could have had no other tradition than that of the prince of the apostles. This, of course, was not the position of the Copts, who saw the ancient patriarchates as equals."

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_the_Great#cite_note-Acts-2

Or how about this?:

In the early years of his papacy, Pope Leo disputed the authentic leadership of the Church with Pope Dioscorus, Pope of Alexandria, the metropolitan of Thessalonica, and the Gallica Church, saying that the Church must be lead by the successor of Peter: "The care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head."

-ACTA SANCTORVM: Pope Saint Leo the Great

God bless you, Mickey.

Looking for proof for the papacy in the writings of the Church Fathers is like looking for proof that gunslingers in the 1800s used Colt 45 handguns based only on descriptions of the guns they used at the time. You are reading an anachronistic conception of the function of the bishop of Rome into the Church Fathers. If the papacy were so central to the functioning of the pre-schism Church, why are there no canons which regulate how the pope relates to the general councils or how the pope relates to other churches (after all there are canons which regulate how metropolitan bishops relate to their bishops)? The problem is that the modern papacy is completely unlike what it was within the Church during the first millennium, and you are reading this modern papacy into historical documents written when it did not exist.

 

[jam070406]

Looking for proof for the papacy in the writings of the Church Fathers is like looking for proof that gunslingers in the 1800s used Colt 45 handguns based only on descriptions of the guns they used at the time. You are reading an anachronistic conception of the function of the bishop of Rome into the Church Fathers. If the papacy were so central to the functioning of the pre-schism Church, why are there no canons which regulate how the pope relates to the general councils or how the pope relates to other churches (after all there are canons which regulate how metropolitan bishops relate to their bishops)? The problem is that the modern papacy is completely unlike what it was within the Church during the first millennium, and you are reading this modern papacy into historical documents written when it did not exist.

Actually, he’s not. He provided a quote that says the Pope is the primate of all Bishops. He’s not reading into anything, the words speak for themselves.

 

[Hesychios]

This is a very interesting point. It made me wonder how the Eastern Orthodox view the authority of their Patriarchs over the other Bishops. Catholic Bishops (both the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rites) are expected to be very obedient to their Patriarch (which in the Latin Rite happens to be the Pope). But there seems to be a lack of consensus among the Eastern Orthodox as to what is the authority of their respective Patriarchs over the other Bishops. It seems the Eastern Orthodox Bishops seem to consider their own Patriarchs as “First Among Equals” in the same way they regard the Pope as “First Among Equals”. If this is true then the Eastern Orthodox do not really have a Hierarchy in their Churches. I must admit I know little of the authority of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs over the other Bishops. Could any EO educate me on this issue?

In the first place, primacy is operative throughout the church, at every level and in every place. The Orthodox understand this principle very well.

A common misconception ( was mine as well, in a former life) was that the patriarchs were like Popes. This makes it a convenient argument to claim that (as I have often read) patriarchs were “jealous of the Pope’s power, wanting a portion of it” and that sort of thing.

However, it does not necessarily work like that. A patriarchs actual authority (control) remains within his own synod, he is actually a Metropolitan-leader of the synod, and he must be able and willing to work with the bishops as much as the bishops must be able and willing to work with him. A patriarch is a Metropolitan that he leads a See which is highly respected for it’s antiquity, and for being a ‘mother church’ to the rest of us, a seminal church. But we know that there is no higher sacramental order than a bishop, everything else is an office of the church, established by the church.

Furthermore. in the east any churchman can be called to account for his bad behavior or any theological mistake by his removal. It happens, no one is exempt from scrutiny, not even a patriarch.

So patriarchs lead their own synods as Metropolitans, and beyond their own local church may be able to also use persuasion based on the respect accorded them by others.

It may be better to broaden one’s ideas of what constitutes leadership. There are many ways to organize a group, a society, a corporation, a government, etc.

I grew up in a little town in Illinois many years ago, and at the time this little suburban hamlet had what was called a ‘village’ government. There were no aldermen, they were Trustees (elected ‘at large’), and the chairman of the village board was the President.

Every officer had one vote, and the chairman (the President) got to break the ties. That’s a model we don’t see reflected in many people’s thoughts about power around here, but it works. The President of the Village Board has (by any count) more authority than any one Trustee, but he cannot run the town by himself, and he sometimes will not carry the day, he has to work with the board. Under the board there are the supervisors, the clerks, the workers.

In corporations there are Boards of Directors. Often the directors have weighted votes, based upon how much stock they control, these boards have a chairman too, sometimes representing the largest voting block, or sometimes a coalition of investors. Obviously the chairman is a highly respected individual, he may even be from the founding family and he may have a lot of supporters on the board. But unless he controls or influences most of the voting stock he will not run the company by himself. Under the board there are the Presidents and VP’s, the managers and the foremen.

I don’t think anyone will claim those two types of structure are not hierarchical.

There are a lot of models for leadership and control out there, our task is really to determine what the early church did, and not project our own presuppositions into the past. It’s not easy, there has been a lot of dust and smoke since then.

But we still have the canons, we can see exactly what the Fathers of the church expected of the church by reading them.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Actually, he’s not. He provided a quote that says the Pope is the primate of all Bishops. He’s not reading into anything, the words speak for themselves.

How was that primacy exercised then, and where may I find details of what the special prerogatives (prerogatives recognized by the whole Church, not just prerogatives recognized unilaterally) of the Pope were during the first millennium? That’s my biggest question. I have a hard time believing that the primacy of the Pope in the first millennium is anything near what the primacy of the Pope is in the Roman Catholic Church today.

 

[lyrikal]

Looking for proof for the papacy in the writings of the Church Fathers is like looking for proof that gunslingers in the 1800s used Colt 45 handguns based only on descriptions of the guns they used at the time. You are reading an anachronistic conception of the function of the bishop of Rome into the Church Fathers. If the papacy were so central to the functioning of the pre-schism Church, why are there no canons which regulate how the pope relates to the general councils or how the pope relates to other churches (after all there are canons which regulate how metropolitan bishops relate to their bishops)? The problem is that the modern papacy is completely unlike what it was within the Church during the first millennium, and you are reading this modern papacy into historical documents written when it did not exist.

Hi Cavaradossi,

I do not see anything here that deals with St. Pope Leo the Great’s quotes.

Grace and peace.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You answered your own question.

In Christ,
Andrew

So why even bother with having the title?

 

[Monica4316]

Actually St. Peter (in the case of the keys) represents all bishops of the Church. For the historic papal position, see read the sermons of Pope St. Leo the Great (Sermon IV):

“Et quaecumque ligaueris super terram, erunt ligata et in caelis, et quaecumque solueris super terram, erunt soluta et in caelis …Petro enim ideo hoc singulariter creditur, quia cunctis ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur. Manet ergo Petri priuilegium, ubicumque ex ipsius fertur aequitate iudicium.”

“Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, it shall have been bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose, shall have been loosed in heaven …This power is confided to him in a special manner, because the type of Peter is proposed to all the pastors of the Church. Therefore the privilege of Peter dwells wherever judgment is given with his equity”.

This might suggest that the Bishops share in the privelege of Peter when they speak in union with the Pope (ie: infallibility extends from the Pope to the whole Church as long as it’s with the Pope, for example in a Council… which I read is also a Catholic teaching)

Just a guess

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

Hi Mark of Ephesus,

In that same sermon, Pope St. Leo the Great said:

“From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church. Thus, although among the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, it is really Peter who rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler. Divine condescension, dearly beloved, has granted to this man in a wonderful and marvelous manner the aggregate of its power; and if there was something that it wanted to be his in common with other leaders, it never gave whatever it did not deny to others except through him.”

-Sermon 4,2 taken from Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 3, page 275.

Elsewhere, he says (in a letter to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica:

But if in that which you believed necessary to be discussed and settled with the brethren, their opinion differs from your own wishes, let all be referred to us, with the minutes of your proceedings attested, that all ambiguities may be removed, and what is pleasing to God decided…The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful: and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests. And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honorable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.
-Letter 14

There are a lot more we can go into but I don’t think it’s necessary. I hope the above suffices to show the context of St. Leo the Great’s understanding of the See of Rome.

God bless you, brother.

Interesting…

Not really a good point. It is definitely problematic, the episcopacy does not depend upon the office of Pope, your own church declares this, nullifying the entire argument.

But in the Catholic Church, we do believe that the Orthodox Church has valid Bishops, even though they are without the Pope. So we are not saying that the office of Bishops depends on the Pope to be valid. It only needs Apostolic Succession. But we are saying that - the Pope holds them in unity.

In my understanding the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the Pope has a higher office than Bishops… he is a Bishop himself and that’s the highest office in the Church. But he is the leader of the Bishops as Peter was leader of the Apostles.

 

[Monica4316]

Spin? There is no need to spin anything. St Leo the Great speaks of St Peter to convey unity of faith. After all, St Peter founded the See of Antioch first. All bishops speak through St Peter. All bishops speak through all the Apostles who derive their authority from Christ Himself. St Leo the Great’s writings are not proof of some type of doctrine of supremacy and/or infallibility.

This is not certain… I mean, in the quote given before, it says “and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.” This could be taken in two ways… either that through exercising their episcopal authority, bishops of greater cities share in Peter’s “one seat”. Or that the care of the universal Church through these Bishops converges upon Peter’s “one seat” - in Rome. It would be interesting to examine the writings to see which one is meant. In other writings of the Church Fathers though - it does talk about Rome specifically being “Peter’s chair”.

Your post does not deal with the quotes from Pope Leo. Assuming my post does not suffice that Leo believed in the primacy of Peter, here is another one:

( Sermon III )

1. Peter, persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church which he accepted. For he was ordained before the rest in such a manner that as he was called the Rock, as he was declared the foundation, as he was constituted doorkeeper of the kingdom of Heaven, as he was appointed judge to bind and loose, whose judgments will retain their validity in Heaven, by all these mystical titles we might perceive the nature of his relationship to Christ.

And today he still more fully and effectually performs the office entrusted to him and carries out every part of his duty and his charge in Him and with Him by whom he was glorified. So if any act or decree of ours is righteous, if we obtain anything by our daily supplications from God’s mercy, it is his work and his merits, whose power lives in his see and whose authority is so high. For, dearly beloved, his confession won this reward, his confession inspired by God the Father in the apostle’s heart, which transcended all the uncertainty of human judgment and was endowed with the firmness of a rock that no assault could shake. Throughout the Church Peter still says daily: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” and every tongue which confesses the Lord is inspired by the leadership of his voice…

1. And so, dearly beloved, with reasonable obedience, we celebrate today’s festival in such a way that in my humble person he may be recognized and honored, on whom rests the care of all the shepherds, as well as the charge of the sheep commended to him. His dignity is not diminished by even so unworthy an heir. Hence the presence of my venerable brethren and fellow priests, as much desired and valued by me, will be still more sacred and precious if they will transfer the chief honor of this service, in which they have deigned to take part, to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see but also the primate of all bishops. When therefore we utter our exhortations in your ears, holy brethren, believe that he is speaking whose representative we are, because it is his warning that we give and nothing but his teaching that we preach

-http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/leo.htm

that quote does suggest that Rome is Peter’s See… (not all in the same way).

Looking for proof for the papacy in the writings of the Church Fathers is like looking for proof that gunslingers in the 1800s used Colt 45 handguns based only on descriptions of the guns they used at the time. You are reading an anachronistic conception of the function of the bishop of Rome into the Church Fathers. If the papacy were so central to the functioning of the pre-schism Church, why are there no canons which regulate how the pope relates to the general councils or how the pope relates to other churches (after all there are canons which regulate how metropolitan bishops relate to their bishops)? The problem is that the modern papacy is completely unlike what it was within the Church during the first millennium, and you are reading this modern papacy into historical documents written when it did not exist.

Actually, Pope St Gregory (Gregory the Great) - talked about how it’s a custom for the Pope to acknowledge a council (through being there in person, in writing, or through legates) or it’s NOT valid, even if all other bishops are there. He said, this is the custom tha was known from the beginning to all. Since it was known and not disputed…maybe that is why there are no canons. There are typically only canons made about things that are being disputed. At the time the Papacy began to be questioned, - the Church was dividing already.

God bless

 

[lyrikal]

How was that primacy exercised then, and where may I find details of what the special prerogatives (prerogatives recognized by the whole Church, not just prerogatives recognized unilaterally) of the Pope were during the first millennium? That’s my biggest question. I have a hard time believing that the primacy of the Pope in the first millennium is anything near what the primacy of the Pope is in the Roman Catholic Church today.

Hi Cavaradossi,

I do note your sincerity to know. We can start with the Council of Chalcedon. Are you familiar with the historical context of the Council? Are you familiar with “Canon” #28 and the story behind it? I’ll await your response to this before further proceeding.

P.S. I’m a Chaldean Catholic and I have a GREAT appreciation for the Orthodox Faith. Especially for the reverence during the Divine Liturgy and how deeply rooted the faith is in Tradition. There are so many things we can learn from each other and so I do pray for unity.

God bless you, Cavaradossi.

 

[lyrikal]

This is not certain… I mean, in the quote given before, it says “and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.” This could be taken in two ways… either that through exercising their episcopal authority, bishops of greater cities share in Peter’s “one seat”. Or that the care of the universal Church through these Bishops converges upon Peter’s “one seat” - in Rome. It would be interesting to examine the writings to see which one is meant. In other writings of the Church Fathers though - it does talk about Rome specifically being “Peter’s chair”.

that quote does suggest that Rome is Peter’s See… (not all in the same way).

Actually, Pope St Gregory (Gregory the Great) - talked about how it’s a custom for the Pope to acknowledge a council (through being there in person, in writing, or through legates) or it’s NOT valid, even if all other bishops are there. He said, this is the custom tha was known from the beginning to all. Since it was known and not disputed…maybe that is why there are no canons. There are typically only canons made about things that are being disputed. At the time the Papacy began to be questioned, - the Church was dividing already.

God bless

Excellent post, Monica.

Thank you and God bless you, sister.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi Cavaradossi,

I do note your sincerity to know. We can start with the Council of Chalcedon. Are you familiar with the historical context of the Council? Are you familiar with “Canon” #28 and the story behind it? I’ll await your response to this before further proceeding.

P.S. I’m a Chaldean Catholic and I have a GREAT appreciation for the Orthodox Faith. Especially for the reverence during the Divine Liturgy and how deeply rooted the faith is in Tradition. There are so many things we can learn from each other and so I do pray for unity.

God bless you, Cavaradossi.

Yes, I am familiar with Chalcedon and Canon 28. Canon 28 raised Constantinople to the second rank of honor. The Popes refused to accept it, but Canon 28 was accepted in the East anyway at the Council of Trullo. Again, to me, it doesn’t really seem as if the pope’s historic primacy was powerful enough to control churches beyond the jurisdiction of Rome nor was it powerful enough to defy the will of a general council (or even a local council for that matter).

 

[Hesychios]

Are you familiar with “Canon” #28 and the story behind it?

Every church has to approve an ecumenical Council, not just Rome.

This is why the Council is normally accepted officially at a subsequent gathering.

As to canon 28, it had full force and effect throughout the church, except it was not recognized in the west. Nothing the Popes did or said could change that, and whenever the bishops of the east gathered together after that point they observed the new order of priority, completely ignoring the bishop of Rome’s objections.

Finally, hundreds of years later, Rome reversed itself at the Latin Council of Lateran of 1215 and accepted the Orthodox order of precedence. It seems they recognized they cannot do anything about it.

From the CCEO (promulgated by Pope John Paul II) in 1990 …

Canon 59

1. The order of precedence among the ancient patriarchal sees of the Eastern Churches is that in the first place comes the see of Constantinople, after that Alexandria, then Antioch and Jerusalem.

 

[Hesychios]

But in the Catholic Church, we do believe that the Orthodox Church has valid Bishops, even though they are without the Pope. So we are not saying that the office of Bishops depends on the Pope to be valid. It only needs Apostolic Succession. But we are saying that - the Pope holds them in unity.

It should be the faith which holds them together. It works better.

In my understanding the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the Pope has a higher office than Bishops… he is a Bishop himself and that’s the highest office in the Church. But he is the leader of the Bishops as Peter was leader of the Apostles.

This idea was a later development, a back-reading to attempt to justify a political reality in the west.

All bishops are Peter.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Trullo? we don’t acknoledge any ecumenical value of this council. In fact the Pope rejected and refused to sign 102 canons and He renews Canon 28!

So how do you see any validity out of that?

Peace

 

[jam070406]

It should be the faith which holds them together. It works better.

This idea was a later development, a back-reading to attempt to justify a political reality in the west.

All bishops are Peter.

Which council states all Bishops are Peter?

 

[rinnie]

How was that primacy exercised then, and where may I find details of what the special prerogatives (prerogatives recognized by the whole Church, not just prerogatives recognized unilaterally) of the Pope were during the first millennium? That’s my biggest question. I have a hard time believing that the primacy of the Pope in the first millennium is anything near what the primacy of the Pope is in the Roman Catholic Church today.

Because Jesus said so. He made it crystal clear You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of the NETHER WORLD shall not prevail against it.

Neither world means 2 things Hell and Death, In this it means the Devil will never take over the CC nor will the death of Peter end the Church. The CC is led by the Holy Spirit not Peter.

Think about what you are saying here, he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom to bind and loose. Why would he do that for only the life of Peter. Where would that leave the rest of us. Orphans. He promised he would NOT do that.

Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to the Church and would lead us until the end of age. The end of age has not happened.

Look at the O.T and read about the keys how they were passed down. and then look at who ended up with them Jesus. He gave Peter the keys to Guard the KINGDOM HERE on earth. If Peter took the keys with him hades would prevail. there would be NO ONE to guard the KINGDOM.

 

[rinnie]

It should be the faith which holds them together. It works better.

This idea was a later development, a back-reading to attempt to justify a political reality in the west.

All bishops are Peter.

IF all Bishops are Peter why are they not all called POPE. If all Bishops are Peter why do they not claim to have the keys to the kingdom.

If all Bishops are Peter why did Jesus give ONLY Peter the keys to the kingdom?

 

[rinnie]

Every church has to approve an ecumenical Council, not just Rome.

This is why the Council is normally accepted officially at a subsequent gathering.

As to canon 28, it had full force and effect throughout the church, except it was not recognized in the west. Nothing the Popes did or said could change that, and whenever the bishops of the east gathered together after that point they observed the new order of priority, completely ignoring the bishop of Rome’s objections.

Finally, hundreds of years later, Rome reversed itself at the Latin Council of Lateran of 1215 and accepted the Orthodox order of precedence. It seems they recognized they cannot do anything about it.

From the CCEO (promulgated by Pope John Paul II) in 1990 …

Canon 59

1. The order of precedence among the ancient patriarchal sees of the Eastern Churches is that in the first place comes the see of Constantinople, after that Alexandria, then Antioch and Jerusalem.

The College of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, and its head. As such this college has supreme and full authoirty over the uiversal Church, but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.