Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[dvdjs]

You’re right, a lot of ecclesiastical abuses have occurred in the East as well as the West. The difference, for me at least, is that in the East abuses were never dogmatized. There is no dogmatic declaration in the East that the Patriarch of Constntinople can swoop down on a parish in, say, Indiana and oust their parish priest, for example. But Vatican I dogmatically gave just that power to the Bishop of Rome.

Authority not “power”.
I am more concerned over realities than legalities.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why does he need bishops or any authority at all? Let’s all become protestants. You are making their case.

The primary purpose of bishops is to preside in celebrating the Eucharist.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

An excellent example of petitio principii. You have already here assumed what it is you wish to prove.

Your petitio principii that is revealed here answers a posters question that is found from Sacred Scripture and practiced from Sacred Tradition via the Church councils.

I have not assumed to prove the view of Orthodoxy rejecting the Primacy of Peter.

What I would like see clarified here, the Orthodox view of the Primacy of Peter has to be the same Primacy of Peter which the Catholic Church believes it to be supported by Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition.

The Orthodox view of rejection comes post Constantinople not pre-Constantinople. Thirdly, what the Orthodox view of Peter’s Primacy is never an Apostolic Catholic view of the primacy of Peter in the Bishop’s of Rome united with all the apostolic successors.

Thus far all I have heard from Orthodoxy are false views of Peter’s primacy. The Orthodox play on words that come from the Magesterium of the Church such as “supreme”, “jurisdiction”, “infallible”, “Primacy”, “authority”, “power” takes on a whole different meaning for which these terms are applied from the Church.

For example; Infallibility is a doctrine that is applied to the apostolic teachings and revelations of God, that when the Pope’s (Peter) speak excathedra this doctrine protects the Popes from teaching error. As scripture proves when all the bishops united with Peter in Jesus presence not only has the power and authority to bind and loose on earth, yet from this unity (council) their findings ratified by the Popes are infallible without error.

I get the sense that when Orthodox and protestant christians view “infallibility” almost always arrive at a wrong conclusion that this doctrine makes the Pope’s impeccable or superhuman. The doctrine of infallbility falls upon the whole Church’s faith, that the revelations of Jesus Christ and the apostolic teachings handed down are infallible, when the Pope’s declare these same teachings “unchanged” they remain “infallible” without error in every age, language, people, culture, nations and tongue. The declaration is spoken excathedra from the chair of Peter the rock which cannot and does not change to the whole Church.

When the Popes write as theologians or scholars, these are not “ex-cathedra” documents binding on the whole church. These are teachings that point to the infallible teachings of Jesus Christ and the revelations of God to His Church. These points have to be made for those who have a wrong understanding of infallibility and who have been influenced by wrong interpretations of Church documents.

Such points as I have stated above, which are asked to be proven here and clarified by the Orthodox view.

**I am sharing from a Catholic perspective, so as to bring a Catholic’s understanding and clarification to the Orthodox view that rejects the primacy of Peter are many times rejecting what Catholics do not believe in the primacy of Peter. **

Peace be with you

 

[ConstantineTG]

You know that the holy spirit does not go to every christian and reveal true doctrine.

Really? Who or what do you receive in Baptism? What is confirmation/chrismation for?

If he did there would be no heresy, schism, and no need for councils.

The Holy Spirit isn’t magic. One who has the Holy Spirit doesn’t instantly become infallible and can never commit errors. We always need to participate in God’s divine energies. We are not compelled beyond our free will to conform to God.

Christians disagree on doctrine. Even bishops are prone to error as is evident in several heresies.

It was either you or another Orthodox on this forum that admitted that the role of the bishop of Rome was to settle disputes when I quoted Augustine saying, essentially," Rome has spoken the matter is finished."
If the bishop of Rome has the authority to settle disputes between bishops or councils does that not make him in some way infallible?

No, why would it? Does the Pope suddenly get all the knowledge of the universe upon election? Him being the highest arbiter has nothing to do with infallibility.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes to the first question and no to the second question. The earthly vicar of Christ makes sense to me. My sister rejects your church and my church based on the same premise that you have presented.

It doesn’t make sense to me because if Jesus is with us, and the Holy Spirit here to lead and guide each and everyone of us, then why is there a vicar? The King is present.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The primary purpose of bishops is to preside in celebrating the Eucharist.

Amen, but the bishop’s don’t excercise their authority to bind and loose in celebrating the Eucharist. The Eucharist celebration is done in unity where the two ask the Father in heaven who will give it to them from heaven.

Whenever a teaching infects the Eucharist, the bishop has the authority to bind and loose on the local level. If the heretical teaching of the Eucharist reaches the whole flock. It calls for a universal binding and loosing on earth. If the bishop’s have turned away from the truth and have fallen into heresy, Peter is to call them back, and or bind and loose the heresy universally. If a council united to Peter is called, this unity also has the power and authority to bind and loose on earth universally of the whole church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Amen, but the bishop’s don’t excercise their authority to bind and loose in celebrating the Eucharist. The Eucharist celebration is done in unity where the two ask the Father in heaven who will give it to them from heaven.

Whenever a teaching infects the Eucharist, the bishop has the authority to bind and loose on the local level. If the heretical teaching of the Eucharist reaches the whole flock. It calls for a universal binding and loosing on earth. If the bishop’s have turned away from the truth and have fallen into heresy, Peter is to call them back, and or bind and loose the heresy universally. If a council united to Peter is called, this unity also has the power and authority to bind and loose on earth universally of the whole church.

Binding and loosing does not mean any bishop can change the truth. The truth is the truth no matter what. This is one of the greatest misconceptions by Catholics today, that we are supposed to be ignorant of the truth and that bishops who have the power to bind and loose are the only ones who can recognize the truth and determine the truth. The truth has already been given by Christ once and for all time during His ministry on earth. Binding and loosing is extending God’s work of mercy to all, it is not earthly bishops declaring what heavenly realities are.

 

[Nicea325]

Your petitio principii that is revealed here answers a posters question that is found from Sacred Scripture and practiced from Sacred Tradition via the Church councils.

I have not assumed to prove the view of Orthodoxy rejecting the Primacy of Peter.

What I would like see clarified here, the Orthodox view of the Primacy of Peter has to be the same Primacy of Peter which the Catholic Church believes it to be supported by Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition.

The Orthodox view of rejection comes post Constantinople not pre-Constantinople. Thirdly, what the Orthodox view of Peter’s Primacy is never an Apostolic Catholic view of the primacy of Peter in the Bishop’s of Rome united with all the apostolic successors.

Thus far all I have heard from Orthodoxy are false views of Peter’s primacy. The Orthodox play on words that come from the Magesterium of the Church such as “supreme”, “jurisdiction”, “infallible”, “Primacy”, “authority”, “power” takes on a whole different meaning for which these terms are applied from the Church.

For example; Infallibility is a doctrine that is applied to the apostolic teachings and revelations of God, that when the Pope’s (Peter) speak excathedra this doctrine protects the Popes from teaching error. As scripture proves when all the bishops united with Peter in Jesus presence not only has the power and authority to bind and loose on earth, yet from this unity (council) their findings ratified by the Popes are infallible without error.

I get the sense that when Orthodox and protestant christians view “infallibility” almost always arrive at a wrong conclusion that this doctrine makes the Pope’s impeccable or superhuman. The doctrine of infallbility falls upon the whole Church’s faith, that the revelations of Jesus Christ and the apostolic teachings handed down are infallible, when the Pope’s declare these same teachings “unchanged” they remain “infallible” without error in every age, language, people, culture, nations and tongue. The declaration is spoken excathedra from the chair of Peter the rock which cannot and does not change to the whole Church.

When the Popes write as theologians or scholars, these are not “ex-cathedra” documents binding on the whole church. These are teachings that point to the infallible teachings of Jesus Christ and the revelations of God to His Church. These points have to be made for those who have a wrong understanding of infallibility and who have been influenced by wrong interpretations of Church documents.

Such points as I have stated above, which are asked to be proven here and clarified by the Orthodox view.

**I am sharing from a Catholic perspective, so as to bring a Catholic’s understanding and clarification to the Orthodox view that rejects the primacy of Peter are many times rejecting what Catholics do not believe in the primacy of Peter. **

Peace be with you

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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Nobody denies the Primacy of Peter to this day from the Orthodox. The problem is how you interpret the Primacy of Peter is not the same way we have seen it from day 1. Primacy does not mean infallibility and supreme, universal, ordinary jurisdiction. Primacy isn’t what is states in Pastor Aeternus. The problem is that when you see a Church Father talk about Peter’s Primacy, you immediately think of Pastor Aeternus. I’m pretty sure the Church Father does not have that in mind.

 

[Nicea325]

Nobody denies the Primacy of Peter to this day from the Orthodox. The problem is how you interpret the Primacy of Peter is not the same way we have seen it from day 1. Primacy does not mean infallibility and supreme, universal, ordinary jurisdiction. Primacy isn’t what is states in Pastor Aeternus. The problem is that when you see a Church Father talk about Peter’s Primacy, you immediately think of Pastor Aeternus. I’m pretty sure the Church Father does not have that in mind.

And how has the Orthodox viewed it since day 1? Nothing I read from any Eastern ECF seems to support or favor the current EO view. I see no early church father teaching or exclaiming anything contrary to the current CC position about primacy. Again, as another poster said, the Orthodox rejection of the primacy is Post-Constantinople, not pre-Constantinople.

Sorry, I have to disagree with your words highlighted in red. The Church fathers words are not ambiguous about Peter’s primacy and his successors.

 

[Nine_Two]

And how has the Orthodox viewed it since day 1? Nothing I read from any Eastern ECF seems to support or favor the current EO view. I see no early church father teaching or exclaiming anything contrary to the current CC position about primacy. Again, as another poster said, the Orthodox rejection of the primacy is Post-Constantinople, not pre-Constantinople.

Sorry, I have to disagree with your words highlighted in red. The Church fathers words are not ambiguous about Peter’s primacy and his successors.

You’re arguing from silence though. The idea that they didn’t explicitly say it was wrong therefore it must be right is a false premise. The burden of proof is on you to show that the interpreted it the same way you do. The omission of contradicting that the Pope was infallible, and the universal bishop (a title that was given to Constantinople, who was never held in anything close to the regard of the Pope) according to the Catholic understanding means that they didn’t expect anyone would ever argue something like that just as easily as it means they took it for granted.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You’re arguing from silence though. The idea that they didn’t explicitly say it was wrong therefore it must be right is a false premise. The burden of proof is on you to show that the interpreted it the same way you do. The omission of contradicting that the Pope was infallible, and the universal bishop (a title that was given to Constantinople, who was never held in anything close to the regard of the Pope) according to the Catholic understanding means that they didn’t expect anyone would ever argue something like that just as easily as it means they took it for granted.

To simplify this answer, they can’t argue against something that doesn’t exist in their mind. The same way that, say, Albert Einstein could not have commented on the Internet, the Church Fathers could not have said anything against a concept that simply did not exist during their time. How can they condemn Papal Infallibility and Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction if they do not even know what it is? Oddly enough, the first condemnation of universal ordinary jurisdiction came from a Pope of Rome.

 

[Nicea325]

You’re arguing from silence though. The idea that they didn’t explicitly say it was wrong therefore it must be right is a false premise. The burden of proof is on you to show that the interpreted it the same way you do. The omission of contradicting that the Pope was infallible, and the universal bishop (a title that was given to Constantinople, who was never held in anything close to the regard of the Pope) according to the Catholic understanding means that they didn’t expect anyone would ever argue something like that just as easily as it means they took it for granted.

Silence? If you consider historical writings making clear acknowledgment of Rome as silence, then it is pointless. Ah no! Why should the burden of proof lie on me, when I am not the one arguing against it? Again, I read a lot more support for the Primacy of Rome, then the notorious “first among equals” argument posed by EO. On the contrary, the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate the ECF interpreted it as current EO do. You cannot oppose it and then turn the tables around asking the adovates to prove it. We use our sources supporting the ECF supporting the Primacy of Rome. I have yet to meet one EO who can present anything remotely representing the Post-Constantinople view of Rome’s primacy. Where are the writings from the ECF’s supporting your argument?

 

[Nicea325]

To simplify this answer, they can’t argue against something that doesn’t exist in their mind. The same way that, say, Albert Einstein could not have commented on the Internet, the Church Fathers could not have said anything against a concept that simply did not exist during their time. How can they condemn Papal Infallibility and Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction if they do not even know what it is? Oddly enough, the first condemnation of universal ordinary jurisdiction came from a Pope of Rome.

Which pope? I bet I know exactly who you are mentioning, but I would like to see who you mention?

 

[Steveabrous]

Really? Who or what do you receive in Baptism? What is confirmation/chrismation for?

Yeah really, we know this because if he did everyone would agree on doctrine and we don’t. Thats why Jesus put people in charge of the church and 1 in particular to settle disputes.
Just because you receive the holy spirit doesn’t mean he is going to lead you to doctinal truth

No, why would it? Does the Pope suddenly get all the knowledge of the universe upon election? Him being the highest arbiter has nothing to do with infallibility.

But the matters he is arbiting are matters of Doctrine. And he has the final say.

 

[Steveabrous]

The primary purpose of bishops is to preside in celebrating the Eucharist.

Really! I thought that is what the priest is for. Also there are council were bishops settles matters of doctrine that you accept as infallible. I guess they had no business telling other Christians they were wrong.

 

[jimmy]

Really! I thought that is what the priest is for. Also there are council were bishops settles matters of doctrine that you accept as infallible. I guess they had no business telling other Christians they were wrong.

Read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. The bishops primary role is the celebration of the liturgy.

Infallibility is a peculiarly western idea. The Orthodox don’t speak of the councils being infallible.

 

[jimmy]

Yeah really, we know this because if he did everyone would agree on doctrine and we don’t. Thats why Jesus put people in charge of the church and 1 in particular to settle disputes.
Just because you receive the holy spirit doesn’t mean he is going to lead you to doctinal truth

But the matters he is arbiting are matters of Doctrine. And he has the final say.

There is the systematic doubt. Your argument amounts to convincing people to doubt so that they can accept the pope.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Really! I thought that is what the priest is for. Also there are council were bishops settles matters of doctrine that you accept as infallible. I guess they had no business telling other Christians they were wrong.

The bishop is the priest. When St. John Chrysostom wrote “On the priesthood”, he was talking about the bishop. The presbyter were assistants to the bishop, they do not ordinarily celebrate the Eucharist like they do today back in the early Church. It is only as Christianity grew and there were cities with larger populations that the need for other men presiding over the Eucharist came about, so presbyters then celebrated the Eucharist regularly.

 

[Steveabrous]

Read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. The bishops primary role is the celebration of the liturgy.

I have read Ignatius. His writings are well before any Eucumincal councils, So it is no surprise he wouldn’t talk about them. Also I don’t get the idea that the eucharist alone is were the bishop has authority. He says repeatedly in the letter to the Smurneans that the bishop has authority over their churches period, not just the eucharist.

Infallibility is a peculiarly western idea. The Orthodox don’t speak of the councils being infallible.

Really, You guys don’t act like it when it comes to the Nicean creed (he said at the risk of opening a can of worms). You also like to point out that a the second council of Constantinople condemned a Pope(Even though the sitting Pope didn’t agree).
You guys sure act like they are infallible when you think they support your position.

There is the systematic doubt. Your argument amounts to convincing people to doubt so that they can accept the pope.

Pointing out that the Bishop of Rome settled disputes is only casting doubts?
Yet when we read the early church fathers they clearly say that all churches must agree with Rome.
But that’s just Them being nice. With all the smoke blown up his rear it’s no wonder he started thinking he was in charge.