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

[Cavaradossi]

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. For to this end we direct all our desires and pains, that what conduces to our harmonious unity and to the protection of discipline may be marred by no dissension and neglected by no slothfulness. Therefore, dearly beloved brother, you and those our brethren who are offended at your extravagant conduct (though the matter of complaint is not the same with all), we exhort and warn not to disturb by any wrangling what has been rightfully ordained and wisely settled. Let none “seek what is his own, but what is another’s,” as the Apostle says: "Let each one of you please his neighbour for his good unto edifying. " For the cementing of our unity cannot be firm unless we be bound by the bond of love into an inseparable solidity: because "as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office; so we being many are one body in Christ, and all of us members one of another. " 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 honourable 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. Let not him then who knows he has been set over certain others take it ill that some one has been set over him, but let him himself render the obedience which he demands of them: and as he does not wish to bear a heavy load of baggage, so let him not dare to place on another’s shoulders a weight that is insupportable. For we are disciples of the humble and gentle Master who says: “Learn of Me, for I am gentle and humble of heart, and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden light Matthew 11:29-30 .” And how shall we experience this, unless this too comes to our remembrance which the same Lord says: "He that is greater among you, shall be your servant. But he that exalts himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbles himself, shall be exalted. "

-Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter 14.12 to to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica

Source (newadvent.org/fathers/3604014.htm)

I apologize in advance for the huge font to emphasize my points but I want to make sure you see what St. Leo meant when he said “because they were equal in their election, alike in their toils, undivided in their death.”

Those words do not mean that they were equal in rank or in power. Context is key.

God bless.

I have redone the emphasis in order to point out something which you seemed to have glossed over in your reading of this quotation. Pope. St. Leo is first establishing that primacy exists at local levels of the Church (that is, metropolitan bishops have a primacy over the other bishops within their own metropolis, a relationship which was established regarding the ordination of new bishops by canons 4 and 6 of Nicaea), and then by comparison saying that Rome has primacy on an even higher hierarchical level.

The problem of whether or not such an extrapolation is canonical aside (let’s give him the benefit of the doubt, and say the primacy of the Pope is a tradition), you would have to concede that this does not support the modern notions of the papacy, because the Pope’s primacy over the Roman Catholic Church is entirely different from the primacy of a Patriarch over his Church or a metropolitan bishop over his metropolis. This also speaks poorly of the notion that Rome’s primacy was given by divine right to rule: metropolitans were given primacy not because of some special connection to certain apostles but because their own diocese was the center of a province. By virtue of the analogy, Rome then, had her primacy because she was the historic center of the entire empire.

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Cavaradossi,

I have redone the emphasis in order to point out something which you seemed to have glossed over in your reading of this quotation. Pope. St. Leo is first establishing that primacy exists at local levels of the Church (that is, metropolitan bishops have a primacy over the other bishops within their own metropolis, a relationship which was established regarding the ordination of new bishops by canons 4 and 6 of Nicaea), and then by comparison saying that Rome has primacy on an even higher hierarchical level.

I am aware of this. Mickey seems to suggest St. Leo believes that all Bishops are equal. Again, I am replying to his claim. You just admitted that St. Leo did not believe that all Bishops are equal and you also admitted that he is saying “and then by comparison saying that Rome has primacy on an even higher hierarchical level.” This does not hurt my claim of what St. Leo believed but only helps it. So thank you for that.

The problem of whether or not such an extrapolation is canonical aside (let’s give him the benefit of the doubt, and say the primacy of the Pope is a tradition), you would have to concede that this does not support the modern notions of the papacy, because the Pope’s primacy over the Roman Catholic Church is entirely different from the primacy of a Patriarch over his Church or a metropolitan bishop over his metropolis. This also speaks poorly of the notion that Rome’s primacy was given by divine right to rule:

Again, my point has to do with refuting Mickey’s point that St. Leo believed all Bishops to be equal. At least that’s what his quote of St. Leo seems to suggest to me and his argumentation this whole time. Perhaps I could be wrong.

metropolitans were given primacy not because of some special connection to certain apostles but because their own diocese was the center of a province. By virtue of the analogy, Rome then, had her primacy because she was the historic center of the entire empire.

Then why does St. Leo say “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.”

Again, are you aware that we are arguing the viewpoint of St. Leo and not the viewpoint of Lyrikal or Mickey?

The fact that primacy had to do with Rome being the center of the entire empire only helps the Catholic Church’s position, not hurt it. Perhaps that’s the reason why Peter goes there. With that said, one can take a both/and stance on the issue and say that the Pope has primacy because of the location of Rome (being at the center of the empire) and also because his succession of St. Peter. I don’t see how one of the two would negate the other.

Grace and peace.

 

[L_piperatus]

If Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to all of the Apostles why can’t anyone produce the teaching in either SS or ST?

The Lord stated YOU are PETER and to YOU I gvie the keys to the kindom. He stated plain as day YOU ARE PETER and to YOU.

We all agree that all of the Apostles have the authority to bind and loose which is to forgvie sin. We all agree on that. If they did not they could not forgive our sin in the name of God.

But why has there been so much bickering about ALL of the Apostles having the keys to the kingdom when scripture is quiet clear it is Peter and Peter only. Our dear Lord stated his name. You are PETER and to YOU.

This is how I look at it, giving a modern-day example. I used to work at a place where my boss had the master key, a key which could open every single room of the institute. Occasionally, my boss would give me that master key, and put me in charge of entering certain rooms and do stuff there. Thus I could say, I ALSO HAD THE MASTER KEY to the institute. But I only had the master key because my boss gave it to me and I acted in accord with his will. It would have been wrong and illegal for me to make a copy of that master key and enter the institute without my boss’s knowledge and approval, to do stuff there that my boss didn’t approve or worse, had expressly forbidden.

Folks, this is not rocket science. The other Bishops also have the Keys, but only as long as they act in accord and in union with Peter’s successor the Pope!

 

[Cavaradossi]

This is how I look at it, giving a modern-day example. I used to work at a place where my boss had the master key, a key which could open every single room of the institute. Occasionally, my boss would give me that master key, and put me in charge of entering certain rooms and do stuff there. Thus I could say, I ALSO HAD THE MASTER KEY to the institute. But I only had the master key because my boss gave it to me and I acted in accord with his will. It would have been wrong and illegal for me to make a copy of that master key and enter the institute without my boss’s knowledge and approval, to do stuff there that my boss didn’t approve or worse, had expressly forbidden.

Folks, this is not rocket science. The other Bishops also have the Keys, but only as long as they act in accord and in union with Peter’s successor the Pope!

I did not realize the Christian faith centered around communion with Peter’s successor, the Pope; this entire time I thought it was communion with the Triune God through the mystery of the Eucharist, but I guess I was mistaken.

 

[lyrikal]

Hello Cavaradoss,

I did not realize the Christian faith centered around communion with Peter’s successor, the Pope; this entire time I thought it was communion with the Triune God through the mystery of the Eucharist, but I guess I was mistaken.

Here is an Orthodox Source:

“It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance.” (Schmemann from Meyendorff, page 163-164)

and…

“Rome’s vocation [in the “pre-Nicene period”] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome…” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 128f, 133)

and…

“Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor…Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)…we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome…We know that Clement was ‘president’ of the Roman Church…” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 124)

and…

“The epistle [Clement of Rome to the Corinthians] 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. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority…Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument.” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 125-126)

or how about Anglican Scholar, Kelly:

“Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it…Thus Rome’s preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding…that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as 'the archbishop of the whole world’ …It goes without saying that Augustine [c. 354 - 430 AD] identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, pages 406, 407, 413, 417)

There are just way too many things to bold here.

(Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm#HISTORY)

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

How about Anglican James T Shotwell:

"Unquestionably, the Roman church very early developed something like a sense of obligation to the oppressed all over Christendom…Consequently there was but one focus of authority. By the year 252, there seem to have been one hundred bishops in central and southern Italy but outside Rome there was nothing to set one bishop above another. All were on a level together, citizens of Italy, accustomed to look to Rome for direction in every detail of public life. The Roman bishop had the right not only to ordain but even, on occasion, to select bishops for Italian churches…To Christians of the Occident, the Roman church was the sole, direct link with the age of the New Testament and its bishop was the one prelate in their part of the world in whose voice they discerned echoes of the apostles’ speech. The Roman bishop spoke always as the guardian of an authoritative tradition, second to none. Even when the eastern churches insisted that their traditions were older and quite as sacred, if not more so, the voice in the West, unaccustomed to rivalry at home, spoke on regardless of protest or denunciation at a distance…

and…

"The theory of [Pope] Stephen, that kindled his contemporaries to such utter exasperation, was rather that the Church was a monarchy, a congeries indeed of bishoprics but all of them subject to the superior authority of the one bishop who sat upon the throne of the prince of the apostles [Peter]. The Roman See, as distinct from the Roman church, was and sought to be predominant, not for its situation or other wordly advantes, not even for its treasure of doctrine, bequeathed by its two founders, but, primarily and fundamentally, because its bishop was heir in his own person to the unique prerogative conferred upon Peter. To Peter had been granted a primacy among the apostles, so to the Roman bishop was assigned a leadership over the bishops…The Arians, who had ousted Athanasius from Alexandria, offered to submit the case to [Pope] Julius for his judgment. Athanasius himself and other orthodox refugees from eastern sees went directly to Rome as to a court of appeal…

and…

“At the general Council of Sardica [343 AD]…the orthodox Easterners and Westerners stayed behind to issue another, in which they claimed for the Roman bishop an appellate jurisdiction over all the Church in honor of 'the memory of Peter, the apostle.’…[by the time of Pope Damasus]…there can be no doubt that large numbers of eastern Christians had by this time become convinced of the genuine superiority of the Roman See in faith and religious insight. The eastern emperor Theodosius published an edict requiring his subjects to accept the doctrine which Peter had committed to the Romans…it was the trustworthy authority of Peter to which the East paid homage in the fourth century, not the wealth nor the power of Rome…From the time when Eleutherus was asked to condemn the Montanists, through the period when Callistus, Stephen and Dionysius revised and interpreted dogma, down to the days when the Nicene creed was defended on the ground of its Roman origin and Liberius and Damasus endorsed or rejected eastern declarations of faith according as they did or did not measure up to their own standards, the Roman bishops asserted their right to speak for the tradition of Peter.” (Shotwell/Loomis, page 217-228)

(Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm#HISTORY)

With all that said, I wish that the Orthodox Christians would stop making it seem like the Catholic Church has no case whatsoever in the belief of the Primacy of Peter. This is a case that has been argued by scholars and agreed and disagreed with by scholars of all sorts of faith backgrounds. These scholars don’t let their faith backgrounds do the talking but they present to us what they have found in their studies. There is no reason why Orthodox and Anglican scholars would admit such claims above other than being honest with what they have studied.

I wish that the Orthodox Christians would stop saying things like “Trying to find Roman Supremacy in the early Church is like trying to find an airplane in 3700 BC!” This is debatable and not something so black and white. If it was so clear, why would these scholars admit differently than what they would like to? It’s not due to Catholic bias that we believe these things. It is due to history and what we have seen and read from Church history. Some people make it seem like the Primacy of Peter is an OBVIOUS invention by the Catholic Church and that it is all biased to make the Pope seem like the supreme leader. I don’t think it’s as obvious as some of you have made it. There is a strong case that can be made by Catholics. But if one closes their ears to everything that is being presented, then nothing will get accomplished.

 

[lyrikal]

I did not realize the Christian faith centered around communion with Peter’s successor, the Pope; this entire time I thought it was communion with the Triune God through the mystery of the Eucharist, but I guess I was mistaken.

Now let’s move to the Fathers and see what they think about Unity with Rome:

On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

and…

"They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewehre is scattering (Cyprian, Letter 43 (40), 5, c. AD 251)

and…

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)

and…

"Therefore, though your greatness makes me fear, yet your kindness invites me. From the priest I ask the salvation of the victim; from the shepherd the safety of his sheep. Away with envy, away with all canvassing of the Roman power; it is but with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross that I speak. Following none in the first place but Christ, I am in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church is built. Whosoever shall eat the Lamb outside that house if profane. If any be not with Noah in the Ark, he shall perish beneath the sway of the deluge. And because for my sins I have migrated to this solitude, where Syria borders on the barbarians, and I cannot always at this great distance ask for the Holy One of the Lord from your holiness, therefore I follow here your colleagues the Egyptian confessors; and under these great ships my little vessel is unnoticed. Vitalis I know not, Meletius I reject; I know not Paulinus. Whoso gathereth not with thee scattereth; that is to say, whoso is not with Christ is of Antichrist.
-St. Jerome

and…

To the Romans, whose faith was praised by the Apostle, says St. Cyprian, “heresy can have no access.” And this because it was the See of Peter (in the words of St. Cyprian) – locus Petri, cathedra Petri, ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est (the seat or chair of Peter, the principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood took its rise). There the very chair of Peter was preserved (in the words of St. Optatus) in qua una cathedra unitas ab omnibus seruaretur (that in this one chair unity should be preserved by all); (and in the words of St. Augustine) ipsa est petra quam non uincunt superbae inferorum portae (that is the Rock which the gates of hell cannot conquer). In the Roman Church semper apostolicae cathedra uiguit principatus (in which the primacy of an Apostolic chair has always flourished), says St. Augustine the succession of its Bishops is one of the marks of the true Church as opposed to heresy.

and…

I would like to Quote Orthodox Scholar Schmemann again:

**There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy, had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates
this – and to deny this is based purely on “anti-Roman prejudice” **

and…

"Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local ‘centers of agreement’ or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy……
(Schmemann, page 163-164)

Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/apolog.htm

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.
-Romans 1:8

 

[Cavaradossi]

Generally, I like to stay away from quote battles, but I feel that I should point out that if you think those Alexander Schmemann quotations are in support of the modern papacy, then you are misinterpreting them. He is correct in saying that it is undeniable that Rome had some form of primacy within the ancient Church (this is affirmed by Canon 28 of Chalcedon), but he does not say that Rome’s primacy is the same as the sort of primacy which the Pope now possesses within the Roman Catholic Church, nor that Rome’s primacy was necessary for the functioning of the Church, nor that being in communion with Rome is the mark of being within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. None of those statements are compatible with the ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and had Father Alexander believed any of those things to be true, he would have been an Eastern Catholic. He is in no way saying that center of the Christian faith involves being in communion with the bishop of Rome, and it would be disingenuous to suggest that Father Alexander Schmemann believed that. This illustrates a huge problem with proof-texting: unless one is familiar with the context of a quotation, one will always put his own interpretation into it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Generally, I like to stay away from quote battles, but I feel that I should point out that if you think those Alexander Schmemann quotations are in support of the modern papacy, then you are misinterpreting them. He is correct in saying that it is undeniable that Rome had some form of primacy within the ancient Church (this is affirmed by Canon 28 of Chalcedon), but he does not say that Rome’s primacy is the same as the sort of primacy which the Pope now possesses within the Roman Catholic Church, nor that Rome’s primacy was necessary for the functioning of the Church, nor that being in communion with Rome is the mark of being within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. None of those statements are compatible with the ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and had Father Alexander believed any of those things to be true, he would have been an Eastern Catholic. He is in no way saying that center of the Christian faith involves being in communion with the bishop of Rome, and it would be disingenuous to suggest that Father Alexander Schmemann believed that. This illustrates a huge problem with proof-texting: unless one is familiar with the context of a quotation, one will always put his own interpretation into it.

Right we “all” politely tried to avoid this nonsense. Mickey insisted. However, there is NO context of evidence to support the EOs claim in this regard. Sola Scriptura reading is the best I’ve seen done here. Its inferior understanding of total context of any quote posted.

And incorrectly Mickey state’s this…

“We know that St Peter was given the keys (as were the others).” than he claims this isn’t what this converstaion is about"… Than what is it about???

Anything but Primacy is inconsistant with Patristic teaching/writting. The only way one can arrive at this conclusion is by Sola Scriptura reading of the Saints words. Which we now see being done on this thread. Alexander Schmemann or anyone else today, while some support Rome, some not, really isn’t if issue. For that matter we can go wit Dr Hahn, no need to, the proof is in the ECFs readings.

The Angelican quote I used was to show “we” actually respect the Protestants. Not view them as some inferior aspect of Christianity

Do you have a statement by any Patriarch “TODAY” to support the claim proposed on this thread that the Primacy is NOT in Rome??? I’m still waiting to see and read this?

Peace

 

[josephback]

Wow! I go to bed, come back, and there’s 108 replies. Rock on!

For my part the papacy was the reason I couldn’t be Orthodox. It caps the earthly heirarchy. When I was Protestant I remember how I was taught a skewed version of history -and virtually nothing before the Protestant Reformation. We learn the history that supports our side and then argue for it. So does history really support the Papacy or not? Love all the quoting on here.

I have to go to work in 20 minutes but I’ll be back at 8. See ya then

 

[lyrikal]

Generally, I like to stay away from quote battles…

Hi, Cavaradossi,

I apologize if I gave the impression that the people I quoted believe in the Primacy of Rome the way it is today. That was not my intention. It is obvious that they don’t because if they did, well then, obviously they would be Catholics. I did not mean to intend that. What I did mean to intend by using these Scholars is that there was some form of Primacy in Rome that was above all other Sees. What I have seen in this thread from EO so far is:

1.) All Bishops are equal
2.) All 5 Sees are equal in authority
3.) Rome was regarded as honorary and worthy because of her location not because of the fact that the pope is the successor of Peter.
4.) Communion with Rome is not a necessary for unity.

What I have shown in the quotes above contradicts those 4 teachings. Those are the things that I am addressing. I am not at all saying that these Scholars believed in the modern day primacy of Rome nor was I trying to prove that using these scholars. I am saying that it’s not as cut-and-dry as some have made it seem. As if Rome was equal in everything with all the Sees. That is certainly unhistorical and a biased view. If one admits that Rome had some sort of Primacy, then there some questions to be asked which I will do in a bit. But first, let me show an example of what my point was with all these quotes:

Earlier, you said:

metropolitans were given primacy not because of some special connection to certain apostles but because their own diocese was the center of a province. By virtue of the analogy, Rome then, had her primacy because she was the historic center of the entire empire.

And I quoted

"The theory of [Pope] Stephen, that kindled his contemporaries to such utter exasperation, was rather that the Church was a monarchy, a congeries indeed of bishoprics but all of them subject to the superior authority of the one bishop who sat upon the throne of the prince of the apostles [Peter]. The Roman See, as distinct from the Roman church, was and sought to be predominant, not for its situation or other wordly advantes, not even for its treasure of doctrine, bequeathed by its two founders, but, primarily and fundamentally, because its bishop was heir in his own person to the unique prerogative conferred upon Peter. To Peter had been granted a primacy among the apostles, so to the Roman bishop was assigned a leadership over the bishops…The Arians, who had ousted Athanasius from Alexandria, offered to submit the case to [Pope] Julius for his judgment. Athanasius himself and other orthodox refugees from eastern sees went directly to Rome as to a court of appeal…

and…

“At the general Council of Sardica [343 AD]…the orthodox Easterners and Westerners stayed behind to issue another, in which they claimed for the Roman bishop an appellate jurisdiction over all the Church in honor of ‘the memory of Peter, the apostle.’…[by the time of Pope Damasus]…there can be no doubt that large numbers of eastern Christians had by this time become convinced of the genuine superiority of the Roman See in faith and religious insight. The eastern emperor Theodosius published an edict requiring his subjects to accept the doctrine which Peter had committed to the Romans…it was the trustworthy authority of Peter to which the East paid homage in the fourth century, not the wealth nor the power of Rome…From the time when Eleutherus was asked to condemn the Montanists, through the period when Callistus, Stephen and Dionysius revised and interpreted dogma, down to the days when the Nicene creed was defended on the ground of its Roman origin and Liberius and Damasus endorsed or rejected eastern declarations of faith according as they did or did not measure up to their own standards, the Roman bishops asserted their right to speak for the tradition of Peter.” (Shotwell/Loomis, page 217-228)

to show that your statement is debatable and according to this particular scholar, your statement is wrong.

That’s just an example of the points I was trying to make. But, now let’s get to the heart of the issue. I’d like to ask you some questions:

You said that Rome had some sort of Primacy over all the other Sees and you referenced Canon 28 of Chalcedon. My question is, what sort of Primacy did Rome have? Did they have the final say in issues debated by other Sees? Did they have a universal Primacy over all other Sees? How is that Primacy different than what the papacy claims for itself today? Also, can you explain how there can be a Primacy over all the Sees to some extent and at the same time not be the leader the way Rome claims to be today? How can you have “some” primacy over other Sees? Wouldn’t it be: Either you have it or you don’t sort of thing?

Please note that my questioning is sincere. I am really trying to grasp the EO side more fully. My intentions are not to “stump” you with my questions but the purpose is to get a better understanding of your side.

 

[lyrikal]

And to be fair, I would like to show what these Scholars are saying with their studies. Here is one quote that makes things more clear:

“It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations.” (Schmemann, page 163-164)

From that, I believe the scholar is saying that one side is taking it to the extreme on one end and the other side is taking it to an extreme on the other end. I think the scholar believes there to be a middle ground if one is to be honest about history. That’s what the context is with that particular Scholar (IMHO).

With that said, I am making my point in showing that what has been presented by some EO people here is biased towards the Roman Catholic Church’s claim of Primacy. Some make it seem like Rome had ZERO primacy over the other Sees. Some make it seem like ALL Bishops and ALL Sees are equal in authority. The Orthodox and Anglican Scholars that I quoted disagree with that. They certainly saw a hierarchy and saw Rome at the top of all the Sees. They don’t believe that Rome was at the top the way it claims to be today, but they at least admit to some sort of Primacy which seems to be lacking from people on this thread. It’s not as black and white as some would like it to be.

God bless.

 

[Hesychios]

And to be fair, I would like to show what these Scholars are saying with their studies. Here is one quote that makes things more clear:

“It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations.” (Schmemann, page 163-164)

From that, I believe the scholar is saying that one side is taking it to the extreme on one end and the other side is taking it to an extreme on the other end. I think the scholar believes there to be a middle ground if one is to be honest about history. That’s what the context is with that particular Scholar (IMHO).

I don’t disagree with you or father Schmemann on this point. Opinions vary, but people will tend to minimize what they see as falsified evidence.

The plain fact is, most Orthodox understand that there was a primacy of sorts for the See of Rome in the first millennium. The question is then, ‘what does that say about the Papal claims of today?’

With that said, I am making my point in showing that what has been presented by some EO people here is biased towards the Roman Catholic Church’s claim of Primacy.

Actually, most Roman Catholics do not make claims for Rome’s primacy, they don’t even understand what it maens.

They make claims for Rome’s supremacy, which is actually a different sort of thing altogether.

And they have to, because that is what the Papacy claims for itself, and Roman Catholics have no choice but to try and make a case for it.

That may be how you perceive it, but that’s not what anyone who posts here is trying to do.

I for one am making the case that the Rome had zero supremacy over the other Sees.

Some make it seem like ALL Bishops and ALL Sees are equal in authority.

The highest order of clergy is a bishop. There is no higher sacramental order. Everything else is an office, and this is also what your church teaches.

 

[Hesychios]

And to be fair, I would like to show what these Scholars are saying with their studies. Here is one quote that makes things more clear:

“It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations.” (Schmemann, page 163-164)

From that, I believe the scholar is saying that one side is taking it to the extreme on one end and the other side is taking it to an extreme on the other end. I think the scholar believes there to be a middle ground if one is to be honest about history. That’s what the context is with that particular Scholar (IMHO).

I don’t disagree with you or father Schmemann on this point. Opinions vary, but people will tend to minimize what they see as falsified evidence.

The plain fact is, most Orthodox understand that there was a primacy of sorts for the See of Rome in the first millennium. The question is then, ‘what does that say about the Papal claims of today?’

With that said, I am making my point in showing that what has been presented by some EO people here is biased towards the Roman Catholic Church’s claim of Primacy.

Actually, most Roman Catholics do not make claims for Rome’s primacy, they don’t even understand what it maens.

They make claims for Rome’s supremacy, which is actually a different sort of thing altogether.

And they have to, because that is what the Papacy claims for itself, and Roman Catholics have no choice but to try and make a case for it.

Some make it seem like Rome had ZERO primacy over the other Sees.

That may be how you perceive it, but that’s not what anyone who posts here is trying to do.

I for one am making the case that the Rome had zero supremacy over the other Sees.

Some make it seem like ALL Bishops and ALL Sees are equal in authority.

The highest order of clergy is a bishop. There is no higher sacramental order. Everything else is an office, and this is also what your church teaches.

 

[marlo]

The Only way that a church can justify its separation from the center of Christianity and Orthodoxy (well that is Rome of course) is that Rome was in Error, That is the Point of The Eastern Orthodox, Protestant and Other Christian Sect. As one poster here once said. If Rome is right, you know where to go, If Rome is wrong, where would you go?

• food for thought

Wow! I go to bed, come back, and there’s 108 replies. Rock on!

For my part the papacy was the reason I couldn’t be Orthodox. It caps the earthly heirarchy. When I was Protestant I remember how I was taught a skewed version of history -and virtually nothing before the Protestant Reformation. We learn the history that supports our side and then argue for it. So does history really support the Papacy or not? Love all the quoting on here.

I have to go to work in 20 minutes but I’ll be back at 8. See ya then

 

[lyrikal]

Hello Hesychios,

First of all, thank you for your charitable response.

I don’t disagree with you or father Schmemann on this point. Opinions vary, but people will tend to minimize what they see as falsified evidence.

True.

Actually, most Roman Catholics do not make claims for Rome’s primacy, they don’t even understand what it maens.

They make claims for Rome’s supremacy, which is actually a different sort of thing altogether.

I apologize for this. I meant supremacy, not primacy. My mistake.

And they have to, because that is what the Papacy claims for itself, and Roman Catholics have no choice but to try and make a case for it.

That goes both ways. I can also say “Orthodoxy does not have a choice but to try and make a case for what they believe.”

The highest order of clergy is a bishop. There is no higher sacramental order. Everything else is an office, and this is also what your church teaches.

I agree that the highest clergy is a Bishop. But I would say that there are differing powers within each Bishop. I don’t think the Early Church saw every Bishop as being equal in power. If you believe they did, then I ask with sincerity, for an Orthodox response to my post #92 and post #97

Grace and peace be with you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The plain fact is, most Orthodox understand that there was a primacy of sorts for the See of Rome in the first millennium. The question is then, ‘what does that say about the Papal claims of today?’
Actually, most Roman Catholics do not make claims for Rome’s primacy, they don’t even understand what it maens.

They make claims for Rome’s supremacy, which is actually a different sort of thing altogether.

And they have to, because that is what the Papacy claims for itself, and Roman Catholics have no choice but to try and make a case for it.

Hi Michael,

I agree with you, we have both seen this with many who would like to raise Supremacy to a level past Primacy. I don’t encourage this and you know it. I will agrue with Catholics on this issue when this false sense of bravado arrise’s and propose’s some illusion of Camelot and Kingdoms and temporal rulers.

Why do you think Catholics “have to” promote supremacy, and how does the Primacy do this itself? However, I say “no” Catholics do have a choice.

Peace

 

[Mickey]

Why does St. Cyprian continue going to the Pope for such things if all Bishops are equal?

St Cyprian certainly did not recognize a supreme papacy.

You’ll find St. Cyprian espousing a view of papal primacy that comes remarkably close to how Orthodox Christianity has generally understood the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Universal Church, that is, he is the first bishop to whom the college of bishops owes great deference in his witness to the Orthodox faith insofar as his doctrinal orthodoxy (and the church of Rome) is recognised. Scholarship (as distinct from amateur internet “apologists”) i dare say, bears a resounding mark of unanimity on this important feature of St. Cyprian’s ecclesiology. Let me give you a few such quotes which convey the mind of this important Father in witnessing to one of the most ancient beliefs about the primacy of Peter, keeping in mind that some of these sources are Roman Catholic:
"In a letter to Cyprian, Firmilian endorsed everything the bishop of Carthage had said and added a few strokes of his own…Recalling the earlier dispute about the date of Easter, he upheld the practice of Asia Minor by commenting that, in the celebration of Easter and in many other matters, the Romans did not observe the practices established in the age of the Apostles, though they vainly claimed apostolic authority for their aberrant forms. The decree of Stephen was the most recent instance of such audacity, an instance so grave that Firmilian ranked Stephen among heretics and blasphemers and compared his doctrines and discipline with the perfidy of Judas. The Apostles did not command as Stephen commanded, Firmilian wrote, nor did Christ establish the primacy which he claimed…To the Roman custom, Firmilian, like Cyprian, opposed the custom of truth, ‘holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the Apostles.’ And, Firmilian argued, by his violence and obstinacy, Stephen had apostacized from the communion of ecclesiastical unity; far from cutting heretics off from his communion, he had cut himself off from the orthodox and made himself ‘a stranger in all respects from his brethren, rebelling against the sacrament and the faith with the madness of contumacious discord…’ "
(Morrison, K 1969, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church, Princeton: Princeton University, pp. 31-32.

 

[Mickey]

Tell me, why would a Protestant want to admit that Matthew 16 is connected to Isaiah 22?

Holy Orthodoxy looks to the patristic consensus for Scriptural interpretation. I do not know why a few protestant sources have arrived at this interpretation. Here is another protestant point of view for you:

Sometimes Matthew 16 is compared to Isaiah 22:22: “The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open.” A Catholic apologist argues, “Christ also gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), a direct reference to Is. 22:22 where the servant Eliakim is granted, using the symbol of the keys, the authority of his master to become the Prime Minister, as it were, of the Davidic Kingdom. Here in Matthew we have Christ using the same language and the same symbol of the keys to grant His authority to His servant Peter, making Peter the Prime Minister of His Kingdom.” 2]

It is doubtful whether Matthew 16 is at all a direct reference to Isaiah 22. For example, Isaiah speaks about “the key” (singular) while Matthew of “the keys” (plural). There is in fact a direct reference to Isaiah 22 in the New Testament but it is found in Revelations 3:7: “These things says He who is holy, He who is true, ‘He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.’” The person holding the “key of David” is the Lord Jesus Christ, and not Peter or the bishop of Rome.
justforcatholics.org/a46.htm

 

[Mickey]

St. Augustine, Pelagianism, and the “Holy See”

“Rome has spoken; THE CASE IS CLOSED” (Sermon 131:10)

Here is what he really wrote:

Iam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem Apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est; utinam finiatur error!

“For already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts have come back from there. The case is ended; would that the error may end likewise!”