Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[ConstantineTG]

You say all but then say: this ability it not something individualistic. Are you talking about church leaders? You are confusing me.

I am talking about all Baptized and Chrismated (confirmed) Christians.

 

[joe371]

I am talking about all Baptized and Chrismated (confirmed) Christians.

All baptized and Chrismated (confirmed) Christians are guided into all truth, just in your church?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Primacy okay, supremecy nuh uh.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

jimmy;10910898] Infallibility is a positive charism that the west invokes.

That is incorrect every Catholic theologian or scholar who writes about infallibility reveals it as a negative never a positive. Where did you get this new idea of infallibility of being a positive charism invoked? That is a strange language applied to the doctrine and leans on heresy. It does not exist in the Western understanding of infallibility.

I am still reading the Orthodox post’s here, who continue to wrongly interpret infallibility as being applied to the person of the pope himself as being infallible. Your Orthodox view of infallibility is your own view that is wrongly applied to the doctrine of infallibility. When the Orthodox post that “the pope is infallible” is a misleading statement that is never a Catholic teaching nor is it applied to the doctrine of infallibility.

Infallibility is not applied to the primacy of Peter, you Orthodox posters appear to be mixing the doctrine of infallibility with the apostolic office. The teachings on faith and morals that are spoken ex-cathedra (from Peter’s chair) possess the protection of the Holy Spirit without error who makes them infallible on earth and universal. The person of the Pope is never infallible.

 

[joe371]

That is incorrect every Catholic theologian or scholar who writes about infallibility reveals it as a negative never a positive. Where did you get this new idea of infallibility of being a positive charism invoked? That is a strange language applied to the doctrine and leans on heresy. It does not exist in the Western understanding of infallibility.

I am still reading the Orthodox post’s here, who continue to wrongly interpret infallibility as being applied to the person of the pope himself as being infallible. Your Orthodox view of infallibility is your own view that is wrongly applied to the doctrine of infallibility. When the Orthodox post that “the pope is infallible” is a misleading statement that is never a Catholic teaching nor is it applied to the doctrine of infallibility.

Infallibility is not applied to the primacy of Peter, you Orthodox posters appear to be mixing the doctrine of infallibility with the apostolic office. The teachings on faith and morals that are spoken ex-cathedra (from Peter’s chair) possess the protection of the Holy Spirit without error who makes them infallible on earth and universal. The person of the Pope is never infallible.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The truth is independent of people, and anyone can commit errors. So bishops do not have some power to teach free from error. As history has proven time and time again, many commit errors, many are corrected by others.

Look, even St. Paul himself never claim to teach infallibly. He used Old Testament Scripture to prove all his teaching to be true. He made a mention only once of his vision of Christ when he was called and converted, but he never used that to claim any sort of teaching authority.

Oh yes he did, St.Paul confirms his teachings are infallible because they come from God, not from human beings.

Galatians 1: 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!
11** Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin. **
12** For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. **

 

[joe371]

Oh yes he did, Paul’s confirms his teachings are infallible because they come from God, not from human beings.

Galatians 1: 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!
11 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
12** For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. **

:yup::yup::yup:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Primacy okay, supremecy nuh uh.

Supremacy is applied to the two great apostles Peter and Paul from the Church of Rome which all other church’s are to follow. This speech of Supremacy predates the Church fathers from post Constantinople. And yet you reject these early Church Fathers who are writing pre-Constantinople period?

 

[Surnaturel]

Suggested by who Orthodox?

There is no universal primate. The concept of a bishop having jurisdiction far beyond his own diocese is unheard of from the first time the Church ever established her ecclesiology. You can see in Acts that Antioch and Jerusalem are separately governed, with no one having authority over another. They do help each other, and if there is a problem one cannot solve by herself, they reach out to the other to help them resolve the issues at hand (such as the First Council of Jerusalem).

Yes, there is a universal primate…ask Metro. John Zizioulas. However, that doesn’t mean that his duties mean infringing on regional jurisdiction. Rather, it is a primacy that is manifested as it was in the past through papal appellate courts per Sardica, coordinating the universal work of the Church (read Pope St. Gregory the Great), presiding over councils (through appointment, typically…ecumenical Councils generally weren’t ‘called’ they had to be received so sometimes a regional counci can gain ecumenical status), and when necessary writing to the churches as universal pastor (again, a primacy of service not a dictatorship).

 

[Surnaturel]

This is purely theoretical. This is assuming that there is such a thing as a Patriarchial or Primatal synod exists. There isn’t one today. The Patriarch of Constantinople has no power to summon other Primates to a synod. There is continuous dialogue among the bishops of the Church of course, and there are various “conferences” where bishops can convene and discuss without being synodal.

During the First Millennium, it was the Emperor who always convened an Ecumenical Council.

The Ecumenical Patriarch, Batholomew I, whom I am quite fond of, actually has a list of responsibilities on his website due to the primus inter pares and convening and presiding over a Pan-Orthodox Council is one of them. I also believe that he mentions appellate courts too but I would have to double check. There’s a lot that he lists, you should read it.

And Klapsis is a renowned Orthodox scholar, not some random zealous priest or ‘false ecumenist.’

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes, there is a universal primate…ask Metro. John Zizioulas. However, that doesn’t mean that his duties mean infringing on regional jurisdiction. Rather,** it is a primacy that is manifested as it was in the past through papal appellate courts per Sardica,** coordinating the universal work of the Church (read Pope St. Gregory the Great), presiding over councils (through appointment, typically…ecumenical Councils generally weren’t ‘called’ they had to be received so sometimes a regional counci can gain ecumenical status), and when necessary writing to the churches as universal pastor (again, a primacy of service not a dictatorship).

342
At the height of the Arian struggle, the Council of Sardica acknowledges the supreme ecclesiastical authority of Rome, and gives the Roman bishop the right to judge cases involving episcopal sees. The presiding bishop at this council is St. Athanasius himself, who had previously been restored to his see of Alexandria by the authority of Pope Julius I --an authority that is even recognized by the Arians, then in power at Constantinople. Thus, Sardica merely codified Rome’s Traditional primacy as a matter of imperial law.

365
The pious, young Western Emperor Gratian relinquishes the pagan imperial title of Pontifex Maximus (head of the Roman state religion) --a title retained by Emperor Constantine I and his four immediate “Christian” successors. Emperor Gratian bestows the Pontifex Maximus title on Pope Damasus of Rome, making it clear that Christianity is now the official “state cult” of the Empire.

381
With the Arians defeated, the Council of Constantinople proclaims the Bishop of Constantinople (the imperial bishop) second in status to the Bishop of Rome --a decision which Rome refuses to endorse, calling it unTraditional. Rather, citing Canon 6 of Nicaea, Rome upholds the authority of Alexandria as the Traditional second see, and that of Antioch as the third see. It claims that this order of primacy was established by St. Peter himself. Thus, Constantinople is denied the status of a Christian patriarchate.

With the Council’s decree rejected, Eastern Emperor Theodosius I tries to imitate the policy of Western Emperor Gratian by making St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop of Constantinople, the Pontifex Maximus of the Eastern Empire. St. Gregory, however, refuses to accept the title, and soon after resigns the bishopric.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.php

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

But we Orthodox accept the existence of the Primacy of Rome. That isn’t something that is being debated (Not with us anyway, the Protestants certainly would debate it). What is being debated is the interpretation of it, and you’re saying that since the Church Fathers didn’t explicitly condemn your interpretation, it must be right.
I see the same one liner quotes thrown around all the time but nothing that explicitly shows the Catholic interpretation of a supreme bishop able to interfere in the sees of other bishops and who is considered infallible (even if under very specific conditions).

Rather than arguing from silence, show us that the ECF’s taught these things.

342 a.d
At the height of the Arian struggle, the Council of Sardica acknowledges the supreme ecclesiastical authority of Rome, and gives the Roman bishop the right to judge cases involving episcopal sees. The presiding bishop at this council is St. Athanasius himself, who had previously been restored to his see of Alexandria by the authority of Pope Julius I --an authority that is even recognized by the Arians, then in power at Constantinople. Thus, Sardica merely codified Rome’s Traditional primacy as a matter of imperial law.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.php

There is no such thing as infallible pope to proclaim such a false idea is heretical. It is never attached to the doctrine of infallibility.

 

[ConstantineTG]

All baptized and Chrismated (confirmed) Christians are guided into all truth, just in your church?

All can be. But it is not automatic. As you said, just because someone is baptized and chrismated, doesn’t mean they can’t commit error.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, there is a universal primate…ask Metro. John Zizioulas. However, that doesn’t mean that his duties mean infringing on regional jurisdiction. Rather, it is a primacy that is manifested as it was in the past through papal appellate courts per Sardica, coordinating the universal work of the Church (read Pope St. Gregory the Great), presiding over councils (through appointment, typically…ecumenical Councils generally weren’t ‘called’ they had to be received so sometimes a regional counci can gain ecumenical status), and when necessary writing to the churches as universal pastor (again, a primacy of service not a dictatorship).

Writing to Churches is different from having any governing power over them. Each Primate is bound to the limits of their autocephalous or autonomous Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople does not have any right to meddle with a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church. If there are issues, he can raise his concern to the Patriarch of Russia. If things get really bad, they can issue excommunications, that is, severing the communion of the bishop to themselves, until the issue is resolved.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Oh yes he did, St.Paul confirms his teachings are infallible because they come from God, not from human beings.

Galatians 1: 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!
11** Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin. **
12** For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. **

But he is talking about OT Scripture here. Quick, what did St. Paul do after he regained his eye sight? Did he start preaching? No. He went away and studied the OT Scriptures again, this time with the light of Jesus Christ.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Exactly! I have been saying the same words for years. I have yet to read ANY church father, east or west who flat out rejects or denies the primacy of Peter. I find very little support for the “first among equals” argument in the first 1,000 years.

The early church Fathers who lived and witnessed and wrote pre-Constantinople addressed the Church of Rome as “supreme”, “for all other church’s to follow”, “throne”, “Pre-eminent”, “the Church Jesus built upon Peter”. They even list the apostolic succession line of Popes directly from St.Peter as being the Rock which confirms the Church Jesus built is the true Church still existing in their time.

This first among equals, I don’t find it until post Constantinople period. Although I can see it being applied from interpretations for the local Church’s being addressed to the local bishops as all being equal. Because the bishop of Rome is a true bishop of the local Church, but the bishop of Rome is first among equals due to his primacy who sits in the chair of Peter. Then if the bishop of Rome sits on the throne of Peter, the Pope is Rock = Peter who possesses the keys directly from Jesus Christ to bind and loose on earth universally.

Where the local bishop possesses the same keys and authority to bind and loose in the local church. A bishop by himself outside the chair of Peter does not possess the keys to execercise universally the whole Church. Unless the bishop is united with another bishop united in the presence of Peter and Jesus Christ, it is then the binding and loosing can take place universally.

This is the way scripture and sacred Tradition and councils since the first one recorded in Acts have followed.

We have not described “infallibility” here. I believe the Orthodox reject this primacy of the Popes because they wrongly place infallibility on the pope’s because he is Peter= Rock. Which is a scary thought to think a man by himself is infallible?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

But he is talking about OT Scripture here. Quick, what did St. Paul do after he regained his eye sight? Did he start preaching? No. He went away and studied the OT Scriptures again, this time with the light of Jesus Christ.

Ok, I seem to have lost your train of thought here? The OT has the NT existing in prefigurement but hidden, it is the NT which fulfills and reveals the OT, this NT teaching which St.Paul reveals is a gospel (infallible truth) revealed to him by God not from any human origin.

Paul was a Pharisee, he knew the Old testament writings probably by memory, and believed in the resurrection from the Hebrew oral traditions handed down. He taught these as the law dictated as a Pharisee.

When he writes to the Ephesians with his mind already opened to all the scriptures that was revealed to Him by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

St.Paul now reveals these teachings and revelations he is handing down are infallible teachings without error because they are divinely revealed by God himself, because He possesses the mind of Christ (see 1Corinthians 2:16)

I have to say Constantine you have stumped me here, what does the OT have to do with Paul bringing his gospel of Jesus Christ? I will yeild to you here

 

[Nicea325]

That is incorrect every Catholic theologian or scholar who writes about infallibility reveals it as a negative never a positive. Where did you get this new idea of infallibility of being a positive charism invoked? That is a strange language applied to the doctrine and leans on heresy. It does not exist in the Western understanding of infallibility.

I am still reading the Orthodox post’s here, who continue to wrongly interpret infallibility as being applied to the person of the pope himself as being infallible. Your Orthodox view of infallibility is your own view that is wrongly applied to the doctrine of infallibility. When the Orthodox post that “the pope is infallible” is a misleading statement that is never a Catholic teaching nor is it applied to the doctrine of infallibility.

Infallibility is not applied to the primacy of Peter, you Orthodox posters appear to be mixing the doctrine of infallibility with the apostolic office. The teachings on faith and morals that are spoken ex-cathedra (from Peter’s chair) possess the protection of the Holy Spirit without error who makes them infallible on earth and universal. The person of the Pope is never infallible.

And I believe here is where the entire issue lies:

A profound misunderstanding of the doctrine of infallibility.

 

[Nicea325]

The early church Fathers who lived and witnessed and wrote pre-Constantinople addressed the Church of Rome as “supreme”, “for all other church’s to follow”, “throne”, “Pre-eminent”, “the Church Jesus built upon Peter”. They even list the apostolic succession line of Popes directly from St.Peter as being the Rock which confirms the Church Jesus built is the true Church still existing in their time.

This first among equals, I don’t find it until post Constantinople period. Although I can see it being applied from interpretations for the local Church’s being addressed to the local bishops as all being equal. Because the bishop of Rome is a true bishop of the local Church, but the bishop of Rome is first among equals due to his primacy who sits in the chair of Peter. Then if the bishop of Rome sits on the throne of Peter, the Pope is Rock = Peter who possesses the keys directly from Jesus Christ to bind and loose on earth universally.

Where the local bishop possesses the same keys and authority to bind and loose in the local church. A bishop by himself outside the chair of Peter does not possess the keys to execercise universally the whole Church. Unless the bishop is united with another bishop united in the presence of Peter and Jesus Christ, it is then the binding and loosing can take place universally.

This is the way scripture and sacred Tradition and councils since the first one recorded in Acts have followed.

We have not described “infallibility” here. I believe the Orthodox reject this primacy of the Popes because they wrongly place infallibility on the pope’s because he is Peter= Rock. Which is a scary thought to think a man by himself is infallible?

Again, that is what I am always telling Orthodox.

 

[Nicea325]

Supremacy is applied to the two great apostles Peter and Paul from the Church of Rome which all other church’s are to follow. This speech of Supremacy predates the Church fathers from post Constantinople. And yet you reject these early Church Fathers who are writing pre-Constantinople period?/

QUOTE]

And yet they will argue the ECF from the East where not interpretating it as we Catholics do? Okay, then what exactly are they saying, if our interpretation is wrong-pre-Constantinople?