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

[catholic1seeks]

At what exact point did Rome become defunct, who decided, and how?

 

[catholic1seeks]

But that is utterly arbitrary and canonical, and it does not reflect the faith of the early church, which, again, based the Petrine position as a matter of apostolic succession.

Unless you can give a good reason that the succession itself became null? Most Orthodox today at least recognize Rome as having a valid bishop.

 

[Vonsalza]

At what exact point did Rome become defunct, who decided, and how?

The western schism was a process that spanned a millennium. If you had to pick a date, it would be the Latin Sack of Constantinople in 1204 where most eastern Christians began ignoring the Roman bishop.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So then, there’s no real way of discerning when the Bishop of Rome no longer serves the Petrine role. It comes down to political and cultural developments as well as a novel theory of primacy NOT based in apostolic succession.

So much for the “Gates of Hell” not prevailing against the church!

 

[Vonsalza]

But that is utterly arbitrary and canonical,

Hazard of the process. Pope and anti-popes abound across history. The anti-popes were simply labeled as such, largely, because they lost.

Unless you can give a good reason that the succession itself became null? Most Orthodox today at least recognize Rome as having a valid bishop.

I only imply that he was no longer recognized as serving the Petrine function. Certainly wouldn’t be the first time in Christian history.

 

[Vonsalza]

So then, there’s no real way of discerning when the Bishop of Rome no longer serves the Petrine role. It comes down to political and cultural developments as well as a novel theory of primacy NOT based in apostolic succession.

So much for the “Gates of Hell” not prevailing against the church!

It comes down to whether you believe he does.

Sorry if that sounds crass.

And the Orthodox would only argue that the gates of hell prevailed against the western Church, as the western Church would argue it has against the eastern Church.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Well, I can’t continue this conversation, as I have been at it too long today, and we aren’t getting anywhere.

Here’s a resource I’d recommend anyone to look at to see what I mean about two very different theories of primacy (apostolic vs. canonical/imperial) and how the Byzantine East developed it.

Archbishop Minnerath on Rome, the Papacy, and the East | Called to Communion

 

[Vonsalza]

Dinner time!

Thanks for the chat guys - particularly the rapid fire portion

For you Americans - Happy 4th! (I know, day early )

 

[catholic1seeks]

From that above article, one nifty reference from a Syrian bishop, Theodore Abu Qurrah, in the early 9th century:

You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter . . . Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome.

Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.

The article uses this to express Petrine & Roman primacy. But I also think it’s worth pointing out that he has an implicit idea of papal infallibility. I don’t think Theodore Abu Qurrah would agree that Rome could simply slip into heresy and the Petrine seat there would become defunct!

He obviously sees an inherent connection between the Petrine role and Rome, which is Peter’s seat. This is the earliest theory, as evidenced by Christians like Pope Stephen in the third century, who knew his primacy came from Peter’s succession. The later Byzantine theory was just that – later.

Also from the above article. In the sixth century, the Maronites addressed the Pope as:

“Patriarch of the whole world.”

Hardly the role the modern ecumenical patriarch would embody today.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

That’s not the way it happens

Who does Jesus build His Church on? Peter and those in union with Peter
Who did Jesus give the keys to the Kingdom to? Peter
Who did Jesus say would rule? Peter

Jesus set up the hierarchy of authority.

Sure. And for the umpteenth time, the Orthodox claim Peter’s Heir is in Constantinople. They didn’t do away with the Petrine Office. They’re the one’s remaining that are actually keeping it intact, as they would argue.

So let’s see the proof

steve-b:

The Petrine succession was recorded even as early as Irenaeus. And Irenaeus was one man away from an apostle in timeline. Irenaeus gives 12 bishops by name from Peter, in Rome, to make his point about Preeminent authority

Vonsalza:

I like Iranaeus. He’s tells us that Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome and that its role was that of arbiter. Not ruler.

Did you actually read what Irenaeus said?

All (as in ever Church) must agree with (this Church) the Church of Rome on account of it’s preeminent authority. And where did Irenaeus say that point comes from? Peter and Paul in Rome.

Making THAT point, Irenaeus is connecting Peter’s authority, and every Church obeying that authority.

 

[AlNg]

Peter was Christ’s steward in Jerusalem, and then in Antioch, and then in Rome.

So the bishop of jerusalem and the bishop of Antioch are the successors of Peter. In fact there is a local church in this area called St. Peter the Apostle, Antioch Orthodox Christian Church.

 

[steve-b]

catholic1seeks:

At what exact point did Rome become defunct, who decided, and how?

The western schism was a process that spanned a millennium. If you had to pick a date, it would be the Latin Sack of Constantinople in 1204 where most eastern Christians began ignoring the Roman bishop.

And why not 22 years earlier, 1182? When all the Latins were massacred in Constantinople, and their children sold to the Muslims?

 

[steve-b]

NOT SO FAST. Show me what you are talking about

The post you responded to is HERE

How I presented Bp Ware HERE

 

[steve-b]

(name removed by moderator):

How you misused Bishop Ware would be fairer to say. Your dislike and contempt for the Orthodox is transparent, noting profitable would be gained by prolonged interaction regarding that as it is self-evident in your posts here.

I quoted the article.

From HERE

"Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, while addressing the historical legacy of mistrust between Catholic and Orthodox Christians, has also commented on the events of 1182.

Each [Catholics and Orthodox] … must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance.
Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantineperiod they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (5)

Sources for the article

1. Niketas Choniates. O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates. trans. Harry J. Magoulias.(Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984), 140-141.
2. Nadia Maria El-Cheikh. “Byzantium through the Islamic Prism from the Twelfth to the Thirteenth Century.” [PDF] In The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World. (Washington, D.C.: Dumberton Oaks, 2001), 60. Also, the footnote citing the source for the Ibn Jubayr quote is reproduced as follows. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 327–29.Andronikos was the cousin of Emperor Manuel, and he did kill his widow as well as the young emperor Alexios II.However, Andronikos did not fall in love with his cousin, although he was famous for his adventurous love affairs.The girl he married, after he became emperor, was the thirteen year- old widow of Alexios II, daughter of Louis VII.
3. William of Tyre: A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea. Selection taken from the E.A. Babcock Translation (Columbia, 1943).
4. Warren Carroll. The Glory of Christendom , (Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1993), 157, 131.
5. Kallistos Ware. The Orthodox Church , (NY: Penguin, 1980), 70.

(c) Andrew Holt, January 2005- Permission is granted for electronic copying and distribution in print for educational and personal use. No permission is granted for commercial use.

As an aside

He could have included both in that example. But he used “Orthodox” in the example. He could have spread that out, but I’m not changing what was said in the article

BTW to make the point

WHY do we as Catholics only hear about 1204 from the Orthodox?

 

[catholic1seeks]

EWWWW This is why I hate church timelines. Like, as far as I can tell, this online website is not TRYING to be biased. I’m not sure what denomination (if any) is affiliated with this site, but anyway, look:

REALLY? “Roman Catholic” at 1054 And yet the timeline is happy to place various other apostolic churches within the first century. Odd. And ANNOYING.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The whole website is dedicated to church denominations. As if it’s trying to be the go-to source. And yet it can’t even present an accurate or fair history. Dumb.

 

[Dovekin]

If you read the text, it says “it should be called the Great Schism of the 3rd - 11th centuries!” The rift was forming for 750 years, not just all of a sudden in 1054.

Of course, if you read the text, you will also find a profound anti-catholic bias. It manifests not just in the repitition of contested points, but also in the absence of Old Catholics from the chart. Many smaller protestant sects are portrayed for some reason.

 

[Vonsalza]

Well, I can’t continue this conversation, as I have been at it too long today, and we aren’t getting anywhere.

Hope everyone had a nice holiday and all fingers are still intact!

To your point - we will never “get anywhere” because we’re trying to have a rational conversation about something to which we’re emotionally attached. The currency of rationale will never be able to “buy” you out of your position and the same goes for devout Orthodox Christians.

Both sides have been “at it” long enough that explanations for each major question has been put forth and history provides us with ample sources to generate plausible deniability for the primary defenses of each side. We can use selections from Augustine and Irenaeus to evidence the current Catholic understanding of the papacy. We can also use other selections from Augustine and Irenaeus to evidence that it is wrong. Related, some Catholics are willing to admit that papal power rightly developed and other Catholics will argue that the “developments” were present in the Petrine Function from the very beginning.
Round and round it goes…

You’ll never be able to rationally and indubitably prove to non-Catholics that the Catholic Church is The Church. And others will never be able to prove to you that it isn’t. What the purely rational must do is select who has the better (but not perfect) argument - which is a primarily subjective process. And let’s never forget; religion itself isn’t a purely rational thing.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I have said before that both Orthodox and Catholics can look at the same patristic data, but as I have said before, some understandings come later than others. The Byzantine theory, represented first in Constantinople, was advanced at the same time as this city’s political prominence in the empire was. Surprising? Not.

That is to say, both O and C can look at the data, but we have to also recognize an over-arching “hermeneutical key” of sorts. Such a general outlook must look at the whole picture: continuity with the biblical evidence, internal consistency, plausibility, and so on.

Take a few of these: (1) Is it plausible that the “One True Church” would be reduced to a few ethnic/national communities, whereas the one in schism would be the proportionally larger one (especially today)? Does this make sense from the providential perspective of God? Or, (2) Orthodox Churches also claim a “fullness of truth” and infallibility of sorts. But where is that organ of truth throughout ages? Whereas the first millennium expressed a genuine “magisterium” of sorts, via ecumenical councils (for example), now that is lacking. Where is the unifying center for Orthodoxy to teach with one voice? —other than merely maintaining past apostolic and sacred Tradition (which was, indeed, often originally formulated by a universal magisterum).

And then take the biblical data. Can the Orthodox truly say that Peter’s office is one of stewardship over the church? No one can deny that Matt. 16 re: the “keys” is a direct reference to the OT steward who served under the Davidic household (Isa. 22, for example). A steward is none other than the vicar of the King, the one granted with the task of representing the King and sharing in his authority. Is the Ecumenical Patriarch Christ the King’s unique steward on Earth?

Much more could be said. It’s not just about individual historical datum regarding the papacy. It’s more about an overall picture that takes into account multiple threads of data. If you are only looking at plausibility from individual patristic accounts re: their understanding of petrine primacy, then I agree that it might be much harder for the typical Christian — who is no patristic expert — to get at the truth.

 

[Vonsalza]

That is to say, both O and C can look at the data, but we have to also recognize an over-arching “hermeneutical key” of sorts.

Not on your life. Essentially, what you’ve said here is that we all have to interpret the data by a fuzzy standard that you personally like. I’m sure the problems are obvious enough for you to see when it’s phrased like that.

Such a general outlook must look at the whole picture: continuity with the biblical evidence, internal consistency, plausibility, and so on.

Consistency is arguably the strongest feather in the hat of Orthodoxy.

In the age of the Patriarchs, the oldest living prime heir of Adam was afforded a position of honor and judgement that others weren’t. But he was no pope.

With the rise of Melchezidek (maybe Noah’s “Shem”?) and his subsequent Aaronic priesthoods, there was certainly a high priest but we see no evidence that he held absolute power either.

The inconsistent oddity would be Christ saying “Thou Art Peter, and on this Rock I build my Church and you will be the supreme, immediate and infallible leader of it”.

As it pertains to the biblical evidence - we have little to support your view. For the contraposition, we have Paul’s rebuke of Peter and the councils of Acts (as opposed to Petrine Bulls).

You views are highly interpretive - just like mine are. And that’s completely fine. But for the sake of scholarship, it should be realized as such.

Is it plausible that the “One True Church” would be reduced to a few ethnic/national communities, whereas the one in schism would be the proportionally larger one (especially today)?

Gently offered - the only reason Roman Catholicism is as large as it is would be because it was the common, shared faith of Spain, Portugal and France - easily the greatest powers (aside from England) of the Age of Colonialism.

If they commonly shared Mormonism or Bahai, then those faiths would be the dominant faiths of the world.

Does this make sense from the providential perspective of God?

Sure. And from the same providence, God clearly wanted much of the Asian steppe to be dominated by Russian Orthodoxy rather than Roman Catholicism. Which shows the problem of hanging your hat on “God’s providence” when faced with simple happenstance.

Where is the unifying center for Orthodoxy to teach with one voice?

Council is the voice. As it’s always been. The unifying center is “Sacred Tradition” which is analogous to the Catholic “Deposit of Faith”.

 

[Vonsalza]

No one can deny that Matt. 16 re: the “keys” is a direct reference to the OT steward who served under the Davidic household (Isa. 22, for example).

Sure. And no one can deny that God was angered by the notion that they wanted a king (1 Sam 8:7 and 12:12).

Much more could be said. It’s not just about individual historical datum regarding the papacy. It’s more about an overall picture that takes into account multiple threads of data.

Spot on. And if you want to actually be the scholar that you envision yourself then you’ll realize that the weaving of these threads into a picture is an interpretive and subjective act. And the picture constructed can never be better than a good theory which never quite reaches the coveted state of “indubitable fact”.

What you’re left with is “Ok, which picture makes the fewest assumptions and has the fewest holes?”

For me? That’s likely Orthodoxy.