Nuancing the "Original Church" to include Eastern Orthodox, Church of the East, and Oriental Orthodox

[catholic1seeks]

I don’t want to over-simplify, because you’re right the issues can be complex, and knowledgeable folks on both side can really hash over the historical evidence day after day after day.

But maybe it’s not supposed to be this hard? Maybe that over-cited Matthew 16 text really does hold the key – no pun intended.

In this passage, Christ identifies his Church – protected from death/Hades – with the Rock of Peter. Now which church is most naturally associated with Peter? Orthodox may have an interpretation that allows them to continue Petrine succession, but isn’t it much simpler to think that Christ founded the Petrine office to, well, be rock of the Church — to make it unified, to be that visible source of communion?

It’s no longer a “Rock” office if that rock can become defunct and slip around, no longer related to Peter but just the next politically-prominent see. That’s arbitrary.

 

[catholic1seeks]

@Vonsalza, if this is an awkward question, I can just delete it. But seeing the direction of this thread is reminding me of past discussion with you, I’ll go ahead and ask:

Is it mostly the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception that is still holding you up??

After all, I could very well ask my very good Orthodox friend, and she would agree the issue of papal primacy has no real practical bearing on her life. (She may not even be at the point to look into those arguments). Orthodox and Catholics are nearly the same on all teachings and practices, though expressed differently. And morality is much the same…

…Except, of course, Orthodox have not universally defined some issues that the Catholic Church since has, including contraception. So I could see why that one issue might slant how you look at the issue of papal primacy.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s not about Rome, but about Peter. Peter was still chief Apostle even before he was in Rome. Peter was Christ’s steward in Jerusalem, and then in Antioch, and then in Rome.

But Rome is where he left his chair, his line of succession. The Roman bishop has the Petrine office because he is the successor to Peter in the same way all early Christians understood “apostolic succession”: that certain bishops can be traced back to an Apostle.

Sure. And the Chair can obviously move as it did in the Avignon Papacy.

Moreover, was there some rule issued in scripture or by early Church council that states the chair can never move from Rome? Where Peter dies in where the papal game of musical chairs stops? I’m not aware of any - particularly as the papacy did move from there on occasion. When it tried to come back, the Western Schism happened.

When you talk about Peter changing from Rome to Constantinople, it seems like a case of special pleading, for the idea that Peter’s successor shifts around to different successions in different cities — and not just different cities in itself, which is irrelevant at the moment — is only ever talked about in Peter’s case.

I don’t think so. Peter moved. The Chair moved with him. The importance was the Petrine office, not Roman bishop, as Peter was also bishop of Antioch for a time. And as has been belabored, the “bishop of Rome” was, in fact, outside of Rome during Catholic history.

It feels like you’re kinda ignoring that fact, to be frank.

 

[Vonsalza]

But that doesn’t make sense, because when we talk about apostolic succession, we are talking about historical, tangible realities. Constantinople, for example, likes to claim succession from Andrew.

Only in vaguely romantic ways that bear little evidence.

Specifically, apostolic succession requires that a bishop be validly ordained by another bishop. That’s it.

And as to how that bishop comes unto the Petrine Function? Well, depends on what period of history you want to refer to because the pope has been chosen in many different ways - which is also part of some Orthodox critique. Where the Byzantine appointments as “validly pope” as the early chosen successors? Aristocratic appointments? elected via conclave? How was Peter’s Heir supposed to be chosen?

If Constantinople screws up, people in some random Russian city (for example) aren’t going to suddenly claim Andrew’s succession.

If Andrew founded the Church in Constantinople, my guess is that it wasn’t the only one. Most of the apostles founded lots of Churches as that was sort of their job. Either way, there isn’t an “Andrian (?) Function”. But there is a Petrine one.

And so here’s my point I’m trying to stress: Peter’s office, his role as chief shepherd, is passed on at Rome because that is the bishop who historically succeeds him in his capacity as chief shepherd.

See how another Eastern bishop (from Palestine) says it:

It’s a good quote. I don’t really see how it proofs the idea that the Petrine function must abide in Rome, though… Was there another point you were making with it?

“Pope” is a title that was applied to many Christian leaders, sometimes even simple priests. That it became the title of the Bishop of Rome doesn’t really say much about his office.

Like the Eastern Orthodox, he is “First Among Equals” within his Church. If that helps any.

 

[Vonsalza]

Is it mostly the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception that is still holding you up??

Not alone, no. I truly believe the papal office wasn’t supposed to “develop” and the developments of the last 20 centuries have placed the bishop of Rome outside original intent based on how I understand the function of Church governance in the pre-Islamic world. Rome was the arbiter. The high priest. But the ultimate authority rested on ecumenical council.

The fact that the Orthodox will often allow a slightly older married couple with several children to take nonabortifacient BC is a strong appeal to “practicalia” in my book, though

 

[catholic1seeks]

Sure. And the Chair can obviously move as it did in the Avignon Papacy.

No, no, no. I don’t want to keep going in circles. So before moving on, I need to be clear, and maybe see if you get what I’m saying.

I have acknowledged already that the “Bishop of Rome,” the Pope, does not have to physically be in Rome.

Peter had many successors in the same sense that the Apostles corporately had many successors: They appointed and ordained many bishops and elders, and at various locations. But Peter’s office as chief Apostle , a distinct role, was not passed to just any bishop that he appointed — but the one he specifically appointed for this role. And we know, from all data in the early centuries, that he did so at Rome. And quite reasonably, we can predict he did this because his life ended here (and so could no longer carry out the role).

The reason any bishop should be chief bishop of the Church and hold the primacy is because that bishop is in historical succession to Peter’s office. It’s not canonical or ecclesiastical role. You seem to be conflating the Catholic, divine origin of the primacy with the Orthodox idea of the merely political-then-canonical ecclesiastical origin of the primacy. The earliest theory (West and East), and the one Rome always held, was the former: that the Bishop of Rome’s office is inherent to Peter, as he was divinely appointed by Christ.

And Peter, in turn, appointed his successor in Rome. This line of succession continues the Petrine office because it is a divine/apostolic role, not merely canonical. If merely canonical, then who should be chief bishop is merely arbitrary and has nothing to do with Peter – besides giving a nod to the “role he is supposed to fulfill.”

 

[catholic1seeks]

@Vonsalza

Why, then, should Rome ever have held the primacy?

 

[Vonsalza]

You seem to be conflating the Catholic, divine origin of the primacy with the Orthodox idea of the merely political-then-canonical ecclesiastical origin of the primacy.

I don’t think the Orthodox hold this idea as you present it, to be frank. The Petrine Function, to them, has always been “Primus Inter Pares” and has been since Peter’s life. It was always a canonical function.

The earliest theory (West and East), and the one Rome always held, was the former: that the Bishop of Rome’s office is inherent to Peter, as he was divinely appointed by Christ.

I think the Orthodox would largely agree. But then what do you do when a pope goes bad? Not only that, but assumes power at an institutional level that you think conflicts with how Christ himself established Church governance?

It’s not uncommon to see Orthodox commentary along the lines of “We’ll readily recognize him again when he gives up these prideful inventions of the last millennium and returns to the Christ-given scope of the office”.

The fact that the ancient Church already ranked various Churches in order of preeminence is something that already facilitated the increasingly likely rejection. Constantinople was next in line should the Roman Church fail - which explains much of the Byzantine papacy during the dark years in Italy following the collapse of the western Roman Empire when Rome was routinely being sacked by yet another group of barbarians about every two weeks (small exaggeration).

And Peter, in turn, appointed his successor in Rome. This line of succession continues the Petrine office because it is a divine/apostolic role, not merely canonical. If merely canonical, then who should be chief bishop is merely arbitrary and has nothing to do with Peter – besides giving a nod to the “role he is supposed to fulfill.”

The function is divine, not the physical seat. As you agree, the pope can come from anywhere by a number of historical means. He just goes to Rome out of tradition because that’s where Peter died. There is no direct special Petrine-apostolic transmission because the last guy that was pope doesn’t ordain the new pope - he’s already dead.

 

[Vonsalza]

@Vonsalza

Why, then, should Rome ever have held the primacy?

That was where Peter died and set up the first administration of the broader Church since it was the logistical heart of the empire at the time.

Initially - for practical reasons.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The function is divine, not the physical seat.

So then describe the divine function of the office. Why did Christ want to have a Petrine office?

 

[catholic1seeks]

And who decides when Rome’s bishop no longer serves this function and must be transferred to a different succession of bishops?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

The function is divine, not the physical seat.

So then describe the divine function of the office. Why did Christ want to have a Petrine office?

The People of God always had a head.

In the Age of Patriarchs, it was the oldest living first-born heir of Adam.
In the Age of the Priesthood, it was the high priest of the temple.

The church was to be no different.

As far as function?

“Arbiter of last resort” is my favorite description.

 

[Vonsalza]

And who decides when Rome’s bishop no longer serves this function and must be transferred to a different succession of bishops?

The same people that decide at Ecumenical Council. The body of bishops.

And there’s no “transferral”. They hold the continuation back to Peter as the previous holder.

What makes a council ecumenical?

All the Churches send a delegation.

 

[catholic1seeks]

What makes a council ecumenical?

 

[catholic1seeks]

That’s not the full answer. Again, the early Christians based it in Apostolic Succession.

I still see an awkward conflation in your responses. The common Orthodox explanation is the same one that originated at the Council of Chalcedon in the late fourth century: That Rome held primacy merely because of its imperial state.

 

[catholic1seeks]

All the Churches send a delegation.

So the Church of Rome decided it was at such a council and decided it was in schism? Hm…

 

[Vonsalza]

That’s not the full answer. Again, the early Christians based it in Apostolic Succession.

Early Christians like Iranaeus identify Rome as being founded by both Peter and Paul, throwing a small wrench in your interpretation of the founding of the Roman Church.

Moreover, only the first few popes picked or indicated their successors. If what you say is true, the papacy ended by the time the Byzantine emperor selected the new popes.

I still see an awkward conflation in your responses. The common Orthodox explanation is the same one that originated at the Council of Chalcedon in the late fourth century: That Rome held primacy merely because of its imperial state.

No, it held primacy because that’s where Peter finished up as a matter of tradition.

But Peter absolutely picked it because Rome was the logistical heart of the “world” as they knew it. It’s where all the boats went, it’s where all the roads led.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Early Christians like Iranaeus identify Rome as being founded by both Peter and Paul, throwing a small wrench in your interpretation of the founding of the Roman Church.

But what was Irenaeus illustrating? Apostolic succession of bishops. He lists them. This line of bishops must originate at a single bishop who was himself the “overseer,” the bishop. Come on, you very well know that Paul is never described as Rome’s first bishop.

Moreover, only the first few popes picked or indicated their successors. If what you say is true, the papacy ended by the time the Byzantine emperor selected the new popes.

Huh? How does that follow? Doesn’t matter how a Pope is selected, but rather who follows in the line of succession.

 

[Vonsalza]

Early Christians like Iranaeus identify Rome as being founded by both Peter and Paul, throwing a small wrench in your interpretation of the founding of the Roman Church.

I do. But after the deaths of all the original Apostles near the year 100, apostolic succession could and did come from anywhere there was a valid bishop.

The rise to the Petrine seat was another matter entirely.

 

[Vonsalza]

Huh? How does that follow? Doesn’t matter how a Pope is selected, but rather who follows in the line of succession.

Excellent. Then by Orthodox reckoning, the current Primus is named Bartholomew I.