Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[dvdjs]

dvdjs,

And your point being? Just because certain aspects of our faith are “exaggerated”, that doesn’t deviate from the truth. I mean, do you really believe that St. George fought a dragon? But does that take away from the truths in the life of St. George?

The point should be obvious from previous discussions on the pointed remarks of Fr Taft in “Orthodox Constructions of the West”, or DB Hart’s, “The Myth of Schism”. Now, you have shifted from mythologized history to mythos in the faith. It is the former point that is significant. Views on history have a profound impact on the way we approach one another. Mythologized history is a barrier that can be overcome by working toward a common view that is grounded in reality, not mythology.

 

[dvdjs]

I keep hearing about these Orthodox bishops who can’t agree about anything, but no one ever says what they can’t agree about. They sure seem to be in agreement on doctrine.

Since you did not reply to a specific post, it is not easy to say. But form the thread, it could be either matters of receptions of Christians baptized in other denominations, or matters of ecclesiology. Don’t know if these matters rise to a level that you would call doctrine, but they do rise to a level that has precipitated antagonism and excommunications in recent years.

 

[josie_L]

I keep hearing about these Orthodox bishops who can’t agree about anything, but no one ever says what they can’t agree about. They sure seem to be in agreement on doctrine.

Nine_Two, I hope you are not referring to my posts as I am not implying that Orthodox bishops can’t agree on anything, I am simply suggesting a means by which they can agree upon (ecumenical councils), when receiving converts (more specifically Catholic converts). God bless!

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Bible is an account of salvation history (inspired by God), so when someone says “history is mythologized” then, yes, the logical conclusion drawn is that the Bible has also been “mythologized”, i.e., it’s bogus. Myth has very little truth attached to it.

p.s. I’m not saying this is what you meant but be careful the words you choose.

Mythologized doesn’t mean that the story is completely fiction. It just means that a true story has been exaggerated to a point that it makes it for a good story, but it does not (and should not) detract to the truth. Even today we still do it, but the penchant for little details makes us gloss over the fact that most “facts” today are still told in a way to make one side look better than the other.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The point should be obvious from previous discussions on the pointed remarks of Fr Taft in “Orthodox Constructions of the West”, or DB Hart’s, “The Myth of Schism”. Now, you have shifted from mythologized history to mythos in the faith. It is the former point that is significant. Views on history have a profound impact on the way we approach one another. Mythologized history is a barrier that can be overcome by working toward a common view that is grounded in reality, not mythology.

Mythologized history is how we tell history, even today. As they say, history is written by the victor. That means that there will always be biases and exaggerations to how history is portrayed. It is all but natural to stress the point of the story. It is not about grounding the story in mythology, but it is just human nature to stress certain points in a story to the point that the limits of reality is pushed. But the point is not to make a story up, but to put stress on what is the point of the event.

 

[josie_L]

Attacking Orthodoxy is one of the few prejudices that are still acceptable. (Attacking Catholicism is another.)

All Christians are being attacked as we are living in an anti-Christian society/culture.

 

[ConstantineTG]

All Christians are being attacked as we are living in an anti-Christian society/culture.

Sadly, it is also to our (I mean collectively, not a specific group of Christians) own doing. We have not been acting Christ-like, and thus are living in the consequences of it.

 

[Nine_Two]

Nine_Two, I hope you are not referring to my posts as I am not implying that Orthodox bishops can’t agree on anything, I am simply suggesting a means by which they can agree upon (ecumenical councils), when receiving converts (more specifically Catholic converts). God bless!

No, I was meaning God Seeker’s comments to the effect that the majority of our bishops disagree on everything. I’ve found your posts nothing but respectful.

 

[dvdjs]

Mythologized history is how we tell history, even today. As they say, history is written by the victor. That means that there will always be biases and exaggerations to how history is portrayed. It is all but natural to stress the point of the story. It is not about grounding the story in mythology, but it is just human nature to stress certain points in a story to the point that the limits of reality is pushed. But the point is not to make a story up, but to put stress on what is the point of the event.

The point is get beyond mythology - which elevates separation and conflict - to the truth - which can unite and heal. And certainly not to rationalize it.

 

[josie_L]

Sadly, it is also to our (I mean collectively, not a specific group of Christians) own doing. We have not been acting Christ-like, and thus are living in the consequences of it.

Agreed, we reap what we sow.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The point is get beyond mythology - which elevates separation and conflict - to the truth - which can unite and heal. And certainly not to rationalize it.

I don’t disagree with this. Mythologizing isn’t about hiding the truth, it is about exaggerating it. Or at least the truth from the perspective of the story teller.

For example, in relation to the thread topic, notice how RCs mythologize the Pope. It is as if no Pope in history could ever do anything wrong.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t disagree with this. Mythologizing isn’t about hiding the truth, it is about exaggerating it. Or at least the truth from the perspective of the story teller.
For example, in relation to the thread topic, notice how RCs mythologize the Pope. It is as if no Pope in history could ever do anything wrong.

Yes, and both Taft and Hart make this point. When myth obscures realities, barriers are raised to finding the common ground of truth.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

ConstantineTG,

Your explanations are loaded with assumption. Some of those assumptions, in my opinion, clearly repudiate the dogma of your forefathers. In the first place, your refusal to recognize the divinity behind the primacy of the see of Peter. And we here are speaking of the successors of St. Peter par exellance , the one which all recognized from the beginning, the roman church. Even bishop kallistos ware recognizes a need for a recognition among the orthodox of universal primacy in the see of Peter , simply for the sake of canon law.

You also contemporize ecclesiology into what fits the need for today in terms changing former beliefs. Your forefathers saw a divine law behind the bishop of Rome and your forefathers never accused the papal claims of the 3rd; 4th, and 5th century of heresy. What was different from the claims from Leo than the bishop of Rome in the 900s.? We’re your forefathers just tolerating this heresy for hundreds of years?

 

[Peter_J]

All Christians are being attacked as we are living in an anti-Christian society/culture.

Yes, that’s another way of looking at it. I was viewing it more like, it’s open season on conservative/traditional Christians, like Orthodox, LCMS, and Roman Catholics.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG,

Your explanations are loaded with assumption. Some of those assumptions, in my opinion, clearly repudiate the dogma of your forefathers. In the first place, your refusal to recognize the divinity behind the primacy of the see of Peter. And we here are speaking of the successors of St. Peter par exellance , the one which all recognized from the beginning, the roman church. Even bishop kallistos ware recognizes a need for a recognition among the orthodox of universal primacy in the see of Peter , simply for the sake of canon law.

The problem here is that you interpret primacy to mean “universal, ordinary jurisdiction” and the ability to proclaim dogma infallibility. Met. Kallistos does not mean that, no Orthodox thinks that. I’ve said it here countless times, the Orthodox do not deny that Rome has primacy in the Church. That is not the point of argument between East and West. The problem is East and West disagrees with what “primacy” means.

Also again, there is zero evidence that the primacy of Rome is divinely instituted. There is just nothing in Scripture or Tradition. You don’t even hear it from the early Fathers. Even if Matthew’s Gospel affirms that St. Peter was given some kind of special universal power over the entire Church, it is quite a stretch to get from that to the bishop of Rome. If it is that important that we all be under Peter and his successors, why is there no mention of that in the Epistles? There is no mention of neither submitting to Peter or Peter passing any kind of authority to anyone.

You also contemporize ecclesiology into what fits the need for today in terms changing former beliefs. Your forefathers saw a divine law behind the bishop of Rome and your forefathers never accused the papal claims of the 3rd; 4th, and 5th century of heresy. What was different from the claims from Leo than the bishop of Rome in the 900s.? We’re your forefathers just tolerating this heresy for hundreds of years?

Leo repudiated any claim of a universal bishop.

Also, what is there to repudiate in the mid-First Millennium? Rome was overrun by barbarians, and the Pope of Rome was even exiled in Constantinople for a while. The truth of the matter is, he was in no position to make any claim of supremacy. And I believe these are the seeds which led to the Pope to make claims of universal authority, because Constantinople literally came from nowhere and suddenly was made second in the hierarchy, and with the emperor residing there, Constantinople actually had more authority than Rome in the entire Empire, both in religious and secular affairs.

Rome has contemporized ecclesiology more. They’ve gotten rid of the local synods in the last 50 years and made the structure flat, with all bishops falling under the Pope and the Roman Curia. National Episcopal Conferences were organized but they really do not have any authority to rule as a synod does. All the do is organize bishops to discuss how to implement orders from Rome. The Orthodox Church ecclesiology of today still maintains the same ecclesiology from the 4th century since the Patriarchs were installed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, and both Taft and Hart make this point. When myth obscures realities, barriers are raised to finding the common ground of truth.

Well, they are not meant to obscure reality. But how we relay truth has changed, thus age old ways of telling truth suddenly are viewed as nothing more than myths today.

 

[dvdjs]

Well, they are not meant to obscure reality. But how we relay truth has changed, thus age old ways of telling truth suddenly are viewed as nothing more than myths today.

No, the problem is that, whatever, the intent, they do obscure reality, harden hearts, and erect barriers. That is what peole like Taft and Hart - on both sides - recognize.

 

[Peter_J]

No, the problem is that, whatever, the intent, they do obscure reality, harden hearts, and erect barriers. That is what peole like Taft and Hart - on both sides - recognize.

Well, I’m probably not qualified to say who is like Fr. Taft and who isn’t, but I’ve encountered some kind of fan-club of his that has some pretty strange ideas about Catholicism and Orthodoxy. One of which seems to be that anyone that doesn’t see eye-to-eye with them must be hard of heart.

 

[LionHeart777]

To be more accurate:

In ConstantineTG’s post #353, the following words are attributed to me:

You also contemporize ecclesiology into what fits the need for today in terms changing former beliefs. Your forefathers saw a divine law behind the bishop of Rome and your forefathers never accused the papal claims of the 3rd; 4th, and 5th century of heresy. What was different from the claims from Leo than the bishop of Rome in the 900s.? We’re your forefathers just tolerating this heresy for hundreds of years?

I did not write this. I believe it was an honest mistake.

 

[LionHeart777]

The Divine Origen of the Papacy was what I was wanting to focus on and I was waiting for Cavarodossi’s response but I will make my point. I totally disagree with you ConstantineTG (and Covarodossi as well but he’s not here at the time- but feel free to respond.)

I cited St. Theodore the Studite to this effect (regarding the Divine Origin of the Papacy) in my post #209:

We desired to be helped by the mediation of the first i.e. Rome] see and by the authority which comes from God, but we did not dare to ask such a favor. Now that God has put the thought in his heart, although unworthy, we ask this boon. May it be for the glory of God and for the greatest benefit of the Church, for just as there is but one Lord, one Faith, one God, so there is but one Church, although se rules from among you. Therefore in caring for us you are defending your own interests.38

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 302 (Blue and emphasis mine)

Also:

Your Supreme Blessedness has doubtless learnt what misfortune our sins have drawn upon our Church. We have become, to speak as the Scripture, the conversation and proverb of all nations, but maybe You have not yet been fully informed by letter. This is why we humble monks and the least among the members of Christ, since our chief is a prisoner, and the first among our fathers are scattered hither and thither, have been able, thanks to your vicinity and to our common agreement in mind and words, to write you this letter, though it be very bold. **Listen to us, O Apostolic Leader, set over by God to be the guide of the sheep of Christ, Doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, Rock of the faith, on which has been built the Catholic Church. For you are Peter, You are the successor of Peter, whose See You occupy with honour. **Cruel wolves have broken into the fold of the Lord and Hell as before has risen up against it.
. . . Come to our assistance, arise and do not repulse us to the end. To You Christ our God said, ‘When thou art once converted, strengthen thy brethren.’ Now is the time and the place. Help us You who have been set by God for that purpose. Stretch out the hand as far as possible. Frighten, we beg You, the monsters of heresy with the flute of Your Divine speech. O Good Shepherd, we conjure You, give your life to your sheep…

(St. Theodore the Studite (and several other archimandrites) to Pope Paschal) (Ibid. , pg. 305) (Emphasis mine)

My citations were explained away by Cavorodossi as exaggeration and deferential language (if I am doing his position justice, if not please forgive me, anyone can go back and look including his post #221-which I’m not sure which quote he was specifically referencing if any.)

continued…