Orthodox response to the Church fathers on papal primacy?

[Ahlman]

What is the Eastern Orthodox response to what some of the early Church fathers writes about papal primacy, as found in the apologetics section of this site?

I am thinking especially of these:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. **With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, **and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what 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 [the apostles] 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 [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

 

[josephdaniel29]

What is the Eastern Orthodox response to what some of the early Church fathers writes about papal primacy, as found in the apologetics section of this site?

Are we really going to play this dueling quotes game again? Both sides come armed to the teeth with quotes that supposedly “prove” their position, and in the end no one is convinced of anything they don’t already believe.

Everyone looks at things through the prism of their own world view. You look at quotes through the prism of modern Papal Infallibility and supremacy and see them as supporting the modern Catholic position. I look at them through the prism of Orthodox understanding and say if modern popes held the faith of Peter we would gladly have him back as the first Patriarch of the Church.

At the end of the day all we wind up doing is talking right past each other. The difference in mindsets are so far apart I don’t know how we could ever reconcile them. If unity ever happens in this world it will happen because of God’s intervention, not human understanding.

Lord have mercy!

In Christ,
Joe

 

[Ahlman]

It wasn’t my intention to start a dueling quotes game, but rather to honestly try to understand the Eastern Orthodox position better. I’m not aiming for a fierce debate, but rather a charitable dialogue. I am honestly sorry that my previous post didn’t express this enough.

As far as I understand, the Orthodox view is that the successor of Peter is the first among equals of the patriarchs of the Church, as long as he is in full communion with it. After the Great schism when the Church of Rome supposedly left the communion with the rest of the Church, this primacy of honor passed to the patriarch of Constantinople instead. What I would like to get clarified is how full communion with the Church is defined according to the Orthodox view, in contrast to the Catholic view that communion with the successor of Peter per se defines to be in full communion with the Church. Is the quotes from Irenaeus and Cyprian interpreted in another way than this, or are they simply regarded to be erroneus (nothing strange with that since they don’t necessarily need to be infallible)?

 

[Wesley7]

I learned from several different Orthodox Christians that they don’t accept the doctrines of papal infallibility and primacy. Maybe its because the Orthodox Church was always independent and autocephalous.

 

[Wesley7]

My logic follows like this ~ if the Orthodox Church is autocephalous and independent with its own Bishop we do not have to accept the doctrines papal primacy and infallibility.

Unless you were to become Roman Catholic then I see how one would read the Catechism and learn about all of the different doctrines promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[josephdaniel29]

It wasn’t my intention to start a dueling quotes game, but rather to honestly try to understand the Eastern Orthodox position better.

That is commendable. Unfortunately that’s exactly what these discussions often deteriorate to.

As far as I understand, the Orthodox view is that the successor of Peter is the first among equals of the patriarchs of the Church, as long as he is in full communion with it. After the Great schism when the Church of Rome supposedly left the communion with the rest of the Church, this primacy of honor passed to the patriarch of Constantinople instead. What I would like to get clarified is how full communion with the Church is defined according to the Orthodox view, in contrast to the Catholic view that communion with the successor of Peter per se defines to be in full communion with the Church. Is the quotes from Irenaeus and Cyprian interpreted in another way than this, or are they simply regarded to be erroneus (nothing strange with that since they don’t necessarily need to be infallible)?

That is an accurate understanding. In regards to the statements of Irenaeus and Cyprian I have no desire to get into that discussion for the reasons I stated above. I will say that at the time most patristic statements were made Rome was a bastion of orthodoxy and because of that if you did not agree with Rome you de facto did not hold the Apostolic Faith.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Monica4316]

As far as I understand, the Orthodox view is that the successor of Peter is the first among equals of the patriarchs of the Church, as long as he is in full communion with it. After the Great schism when the Church of Rome supposedly left the communion with the rest of the Church, this primacy of honor passed to the patriarch of Constantinople instead. What I would like to get clarified is how full communion with the Church is defined according to the Orthodox view, in contrast to the Catholic view that communion with the successor of Peter per se defines to be in full communion with the Church.

hmm there are quotes by the ECFs that imply that the Church in Rome has primacy because of Peter, and being the “chair of Peter” (which is described as a single chair, which passed from Peter to Linus) - not because of any geographical/political reason… other quotes imply that it’s the Pope who holds the unity of the Church, just as the unity of the Apostles was based on Peter who was the head of the Apostles. The Pope should of course, be in communion with the rest of the Church. But if the rest of the Church leaves him, - the Church is still where Peter is. I can think of many quotes by the ECFs that say this… I’ve heard explanations by the Orthodox, but this view is really consistent, imo. I’d be interested in the Orthodox arguments as well.

St Methodius said in the 9th century:

"It is necessary to know that this decision [the 28th canon] was not accepted by the Blessed Pope Leo. He did not approve the holy Council of Chalcedon on this point, but he wrote to the Council that he could not accept such a novelty, machinated by the doubtful Anatolius, then bishop of Constantinople. Also, some bishops present at the Council refused to subscribe to the canon. And it is not true as this canon affirms that the holy Fathers have accorded the primacy and honor to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire. But it is from on high that it began, it is of grace divine that this Primacy has derived its origin. It is because of the degree of his faith that Peter, the most exalted of the Apostles, heard these words from the very mouth of Our Lord: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep’. This is why he possesses among the hierarchs preeminent rank and the first See. For, if as this canon affirms, it is because it is was the capital that Ancient Rome possesses the Primacy, it is evidently Constantinople, now capital of the Empire, which has inherited this honor. But everyone knows that although Emperors have dwelt at Milan and Ravenna and that their palaces are found there to our own day, these cities have not received on that account the Primacy. For the dignity and the preeminence of the priestly hierarchy have not been established by the favor of the civil power but by divine choice and by apostolic authority… How would it be possible because of an earthly emperor to displace divine gifts and apostolic privileges and to introduce innovations into the prescriptions of the immaculate faith? Immoveable indeed, unto the end, are the privileges of Old Rome. So in so far as being set over all the Churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy Ecumenical Councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of some of his subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is non-existent, and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the Council… " (testimony discovered by the Russian Orthodox scholar A. Pavlov and first published in the Russian review Vizantiiskii Vremennik, t. iv. 1897; pp. 147-154)

 

[Hesychios]

I’d be interested in the Orthodox arguments as well.

St Methodius said in the 9th century: …

I already pointed out to you on another thread that this quote is probably a fake.

Even Mr. Likoudis, the internet source, doesn’t attribute this to Saint Methodios, he says “or one of his followers”, it could be anybody, and the document was totally unknown and unquoted for 1000 years.

No one seems to have the copy which first ‘turned up’ in the 19th century, no one knows what language it was written in. The issues it addresses seem to be 19th century polemics, not 9th century.

The author ‘Pavlov’ is a mystery.

 

[eddy714]

My question is if the Orthodox Church would ever try to unite with the Roman Catholic Church if they settle there differences?

I did listen to a podcast regarding the Byzantine Empire and I think its more political and maybe a little sense of pride but, I could be wrong and I hope I didn’t offend anyone from the Orthodox Church .

 

[Hesychios]

What is the Eastern Orthodox response to what some of the early Church fathers writes about papal primacy, as found in the apologetics section of this site?

I am thinking especially of these:

I had no intention of contributing here until now, basically because of the same reservations Joe points out.

But I think you made an honest request that deserves a serious response. Joe’s answers are perfectly fine, I just wanted to add something of my own (which I have posted numerous times in the past).

Primacy is operative throughout Holy Orthodoxy, the principle does not change, it has always been fundamentally the same. At every level one will find primacy at work. Among bishops, among priests around an altar, among deacons and even altar servers, there is always a senior.

This is very flexible in that the ranking is always adapted to who is involved. The senior priest at the altar stands ‘in the flame’ so to say. The other take their places around the altar according to a set protocol, if the bishop shows up, everyone knows their new place without being told. This is a microcosm of how primacy works from highest to lowest office and in every setting.

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/April/33/Image/DSC_0040.jpg

In Holy Orthodoxy primates are not ‘over’ their brother bishops in the sense that most Catholics will think. They are fundamentally all bishops and must work together. The Metropolitan may call a synod, and lead the discussions, but he can not act without the agreement of the rest and does not mandate on his own authority. He could even be removed by his synod, if the need arose and was serious enough a case to warrant it (actually any bishop could be removed, primates are not exempted). One of the conditions for removal would be bad management or corruption or negligence, a more serious reason would be false teaching.

This is not something new, there was no point in time where this policy was ‘put in place’ so to say, it is a universal practice that dates back into the early church.

There are vestiges of this earlier organizational form in the Latin Catholic church as well. Every country has a ‘primate’, but today that has become merely symbolic. Most Americans seem hardly aware that their Primate of the USA is the Archbishop of Baltimore. So, what does he do exactly? Well, today as a primate he does almost nothing any more, the office has so atrophied that he is not automatically even considered the chair of the USCCB. His role has dissolved. When American Catholics talk of primacy in these discussions they think only of the Pope as having primacy.

In fact, probably the best way to describe the bishop of Rome’s role is not as a primate, but as the supremate according to the canons of the Catholic church (but also primate of Italy since the unification of that country). Most Latin Catholics seem to confuse Primacy with Supremacy these days, and use the terms like synonyms.

The quotes usually given as a support for primacy of Rome are just that, contemporary supports for primacy of Rome. This is not, and never was, unconditional. The very reason that arguments for Roman primacy were so strong was that the theology of the church at Rome was so reliably Orthodox.

Sadly, the church at Rome voluntarily and unilaterally separated itself from the rest of Orthodoxy, and started off on it’s own path (one result of this being later claims of supremacy). I suppose no one then had imagined that we would still be here 2000 years after Christ and the perousia has not yet happened, but here we are today, and the church at Rome has ceased to be strictly orthodox in it’s teachings.

Orthodox are not happy with this situation. We would like to see a return to the earlier situation when we were all united in Faith and in communion. This is possible, but the path will be long and hard.

One of the necessary steps will be a retraction of some of the new dogmas proclaimed by the Latin Catholic church. After that, communion could possibly be restored and it is even conceivable that the See at Rome will once again have a type of primacy among us.

Until that time, the See at Constantinople exercises the role of Primate among the Orthodox, in just the same way the See at Rome did before the separation. If one is curious as to how primacy worked in the first millenium from Rome, one only has to see how the Patriarch at Constantinople exercises the office today.

 

[Hesychios]

My question is if the Orthodox Church would ever try to unite with the Roman Catholic Church if they settle there differences?

I suppose that depends upon what one means when we say ‘unite’.

It’s different things to different people.

I think communion between our churches could be worked out, even joint concelebration of the liturgy would be possible. A commonly shared theology is a prerequisite for this.

Otherwise, these are my personal thoughts on the possibility of reconciliation:

The Papacy would have to retract it’s claim to universal jurisdiction, or redefine it to be limited to the Latin church. Certainly the eastern churches could not be placed under the governance or regulation of any Curial departments, and the appointment of bishops and patriarchs would not be conditioned upon the approval of Rome. The bishop of Rome would not have the right to alienate the eastern church’s properties. There would not be ad limina visits of eastern prelates and the church at Rome would not have the right to codify or modify the canons of the early councils.

In an Ecumenical Council (should one ever be needed) the Pope would get just one vote and not be able to veto the work. He would not be allowed to unilaterally set the agenda or control the proceedings.

Those above are just some of my personal reflections on the subject.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Did he have some dogs?

The author ‘Pavlov’ is a mystery.

 

[searn77]

As others have already said, these threads tend to become our quotes of ECF vs. your quotes. While I’m not a big fan of arguing about quotes, here’s something that made me think more about taking random quotes from ECF.

the-highway.com/Matt16.18_Webster.html

 

[josie_L]

I already pointed out to you on another thread that this quote is probably a fake.

**Even Mr. Likoudis, the internet source, doesn’t attribute this to Saint Methodios, he says “or one of his followers”, it could be anybody, and the document was totally unknown and unquoted for 1000 years. **

No one seems to have the copy which first ‘turned up’ in the 19th century, no one knows what language it was written in. The issues it addresses seem to be 19th century polemics, not 9th century.

The author ‘Pavlov’ is a mystery.

Mr. Likoudis said no such thing, in fact, “or one of his followers” would mean that Saint Methodius either wrote it or he had one of his followers act as scribe, like in the case of St. Luke writing for Saint Paul. And the fact that it is a “mystery” does not mean it is a “fake”, i.e., the quote in question has already been used in several popular Catholic books which begs the question why hasn’t there been any criticisms/fanfare over the utilization of this quotation?

 

[Texasgringo70]

As others have already said, these threads tend to become our quotes of ECF vs. your quotes. While I’m not a big fan of arguing about quotes, here’s something that made me think more about taking random quotes from ECF.

the-highway.com/Matt16.18_Webster.html

Thank you for that link. That interpretation of Matt. 16 is what I am more familiar with. From a protestant perspective it makes much more sense.

The way I learned about Matt. 16, and the way many other protestants understand it, was that Peter opened the doors to the regions the Lord prophesied about in Acts 1:8; Jerusalem (Pentecost), Samaria (Acts 8:14), and to the remotest part of the earth (Acts 10 Cornelius/Gentiles). After that, Peter, although greatly respected, does not seem to command a position of supreme authority. It was James who seems to be the head of the Jerusalem counsel, not Peter (Acts 15). Paul records having to rebuke Peter in Galatians. When Peter uses the word “rock” in his epistle he uses it to refer to Jesus, not himself. I don’t see any signs of a progression to the establishment of a policy of the primacy of Peter after Acts 10. Even in acts 11 Peter had to defend his actions of Acts 10 to the Jewish Christians. That chapter to me portrays the leadership of the church more as an accountable brotherhood than one of a single supreme and infallible authority figure.

Sorry if I am heading off the reservation on this one, but it just bubbled up out of me. For my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters let me just say that if you can take the above simply as an insight into the mind of this Texasgringo and not an attack I would really appreciate it. I get excited sometimes when I learn something new. I find it interesting that the Orthodox Church and protestants (or at least I do) have such similar views on this issue. I wonder why Luther and other reformers didn’t seek out the Orthodox Church as a home rather than start from scratch. I guess they had some other disagreements with the Orthodox Church that I don’t know about yet.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Thank you for that link. That interpretation of Matt. 16 is what I am more familiar with. From a protestant perspective it makes much more sense.

The way I learned about Matt. 16, and the way many other protestants understand it, was that Peter opened the doors to the regions the Lord prophesied about in Acts 1:8; Jerusalem (Pentecost), Samaria (Acts 8:14), and to the remotest part of the earth (Acts 10 Cornelius/Gentiles). After that, Peter, although greatly respected, does not seem to command a position of supreme authority. It was James who seems to be the head of the Jerusalem counsel, not Peter (Acts 15). Paul records having to rebuke Peter in Galatians. When Peter uses the word “rock” in his epistle he uses it to refer to Jesus, not himself. I don’t see any signs of a progression to the establishment of a policy of the primacy of Peter after Acts 10. Even in acts 11 Peter had to defend his actions of Acts 10 to the Jewish Christians. That chapter to me portrays the leadership of the church more as an accountable brotherhood than one of a single supreme and infallible authority figure.

Sorry if I am heading off the reservation on this one, but it just bubbled up out of me. For my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters let me just say that if you can take the above simply as an insight into the mind of this Texasgringo and not an attack I would really appreciate it. I get excited sometimes when I learn something new. I find it interesting that the Orthodox Church and protestants (or at least I do) have such similar views on this issue. I wonder why Luther and other reformers didn’t seek out the Orthodox Church as a home rather than start from scratch. I guess they had some other disagreements with the Orthodox Church that I don’t know about yet.

The Lutherans did make contact with Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II in the latter part of the 16th century. From what I understand the Lutherans sent the Patriarch a copy of the Augsburg Confession and asked him to evaluate it. After several letters the Patriarch stopped the discussion because the Lutherans continued to argue and refused to accept Orthodox teaching.

Here is a link to an article on the subject and some excerpts from the letters.

In Christ,
Joe

 

[Texasgringo70]

The Lutherans did make contact with Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II in the latter part of the 16th century. From what I understand the Lutherans sent the Patriarch a copy of the Augsburg Confession and asked him to evaluate it. After several letters the Patriarch stopped the discussion because the Lutherans continued to argue and refused to accept Orthodox teaching.

Here is a link to an article on the subject and some excerpts from the letters.

In Christ,
Joe

Hey, thanks Joe. You’re all right. looks like I stumbled into some more truth again without even relizing it. I’ll check out those letters in a bit to see what Luther got hung up on. Sounds like an interesting read.

All the best.

 

[Hesychios]

… the quote in question has already been used in several popular Catholic books which begs the question why hasn’t there been any criticisms/fanfare over the utilization of this quotation?

Probably because Orthodox will not normally read those books, and Catholics will usually not question what is written in them.

 

[IowaJay]

I’ll check out those letters in a bit to see what Luther got hung up on.

All the best.

Not Luther, but his successors - the dialogue occurred after Luther was dead.

Regarding the topic of this thread, I’ve always thought this quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger is very interesting:

“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco, Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/08/ratzinger-formula.html

 

[Hesychios]

Regarding the topic of this thread, I’ve always thought this quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger is very interesting:

“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco, Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/08/ratzinger-formula.html

Thank you for quoting this in full!

As you can see, he makes it conditional.

What are the conditions?

Please allow us to keep our novelties!

Except that would mean betraying a fundamental principle of Holy Orthodoxy, endorsing what could be serious errors in teaching.

I know, we Orthodox are looking like stubborn spoilers who don’t really want unity.

What should we stand for? Unity, or Truth?