Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[Nine_Two]

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.

While I’m not familiar with the Council of Sardica (and if that is true quoting the relevent canons or decrees would be appreciated), I am familiar enough with St. Athanasiius and the Arian controversy to know that there is a great deal of stretching of the truth there (on one of the occasions when St. Athanasius was illegitimately deposed, Pope Julius did assist St. Athanasius in regaining his see, but it wasn’t simply by making a Papal pronouncement, as that would seem to indicate). This leads me to be unable to take anything that site says at face value.

Regarding infallibility, I didn’t say the Pope was considered infallible without limit, I mentioned that there are conditions on it. I put it in brackets because the conditions aren’t relevant to the argument since no one has shown an early belief in any sort of infallibility.

 

[Nine_Two]

And I believe here is where the entire issue lies:

A profound misunderstanding of the doctrine of infallibility.

It was an Eastern Catholic who called it a positive chrism, and he appears to have been misreading what I said about issues of infallibility, ignoring the part where I said “even if under very specific conditions”.

So unfortunately it isn’t that easy.

 

[Nine_Two]

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?

You aren’t addressing me (or anyone who can address it, for some reason), but what they said was that the Bishop of Rome holds a position of authority among the primates. In addition to being seen as being the highest in honor, he also has the most senior office, his words hold great weight, and he could act as arbiter of disputes between the individual churches. He is never shown or said to have the authority to unilaterally step in, however.

You’re absolutely correct that he did not simply have a “primacy of honour” (although he certainly did have that), but I haven’t seen anyone argue that as long as I’ve been following this thread (I haven’t read it all, so maybe someone did bring it up. Not in the last few days though).

The ECF’s did say quite a bit though, and that is just my best attempt at a summary done over my lunchbreak.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

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?

I reject your understanding of them.

 

[Surnaturel]

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.

I didn’t say that ‘writing to churches’ is an expression of papal jurisdiction. Rather,
the canons of Sardica is a good example of and what I would consider an acceptable expression of the universal primate as well as Vatican I’s teaching on universal jurisdiction in the occasion of a reunited Church.

I would expect the Orthodox to accept nothing than the canons of Sardica (appellate power), te presiding over an ecumenical council by the pope, and perhaps an annual patriarch synod in which the pope eventually releases an encyclical on.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I didn’t say that ‘writing to churches’ is an expression of papal jurisdiction. Rather,
the canons of Sardica is a good example of and what I would consider an acceptable expression of the universal primate as well as Vatican I’s teaching on universal jurisdiction.

Yet the Council of Lateran in the 600s were not accepted universally despite being convened by the Pope of Rome and despite teaching the same doctrinal truths that were taught in the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

I don’t know much about Sardica, but there are a number of examples out there where the Pope’s councils were not accepted despite a later and larger council was convened and came to the same conclusion, or councils that wasn’t even convened by the Pope but were still considered Ecumenical.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Again, that is what I am always telling Orthodox.

Pre-Constantinople ECF’s is True Catholic Orthodoxy in it’s purest form who are viewing and writing about the Primacy of Peter. The Catholic faith is revealed in it’s purest form while the church remains under persecution and persecuted from secular laws, especially when the Popes and Saints are following the path of the Apostles into martyrdom for the Catholic faith. This is all revealed post-constantinople.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Pre-Constantinople ECF’s is True Catholic Orthodoxy in it’s purest form who are viewing and writing about the Primacy of Peter. The Catholic faith is revealed in it’s purest form while the church remains under persecution and persecuted from secular laws, especially when the Popes and Saints are following the path of the Apostles into martyrdom for the Catholic faith. This is all revealed post-constantinople.

Antiquarianism

 

[Surnaturel]

Yet the Council of Lateran in the 600s were not accepted universally despite being convened by the Pope of Rome and despite teaching the same doctrinal truths that were taught in the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

I don’t know much about Sardica, but there are a number of examples out there where the Pope’s councils were not accepted despite a later and larger council was convened and came to the same conclusion, or councils that wasn’t even convened by the Pope but were still considered Ecumenical.

That’s because in many cases, Nicaea being a notable exception, there was not a prior understanding t that a council would be considered ecumenical and universally authoritative. Many of them were initially considered regional councils like Constantinople that acquired ecumenical status upon reception in the churches. Moreover, there is no consistency with ecumenical councils, how they acquired the title, who convened, who presided, largely because of what I mentioned before.

So, there is plenty of room for clarification on this point in the event of a reunion.

Furthermore, just because a pope presided over a council didn’t make it ecumenical. That’s why many Orthodox theologians have attempted to clarify the procedures for establishing an ecumenical council by suggesting that the primus inter pares must preside over it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s because in many cases, Nicaea being a notable exception, there was not a prior understanding t that a council would be considered ecumenical and universally authoritative. Many of them were initially considered regional councils like Constantinople that acquired ecumenical status upon reception in the churches. Moreover, there is no consistency with ecumenical councils, how they acquired the title, who convened, who presided, largely because of what I mentioned before.

So, there is plenty of room for clarification on this point in the event of a reunion.

Furthermore, just because a pope presided over a council didn’t make it ecumenical. That’s why many Orthodox theologians have attempted to clarify the procedures for establishing an ecumenical council by suggesting that the primus inter pares must preside over it.

Oh, definitely the most senior bishop (by rank of honor, not years of experience) would preside over any council. That is practiced by the Orthodox to this day. But again just to be clear, presiding over a council is not ruling over the council. The presider does not get to tell everybody what to decide on.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I didn’t say that ‘writing to churches’ is an expression of papal jurisdiction. Rather,
the canons of Sardica is a good example of and what I would consider an acceptable expression of the universal primate as well as Vatican I’s teaching on universal jurisdiction in the occasion of a reunited Church.

There are problems with the canons of Sardica. The first is that while the papacy used the canons to claim in the fifth century that it had the authority to interfere in the affairs of the Church of Carthage, the Church of Carthage could not ever find any copy of the canons or any record that they had received news of such canons. Furthermore, there exist numerous canons from local councils (most famously from Carthage) which do not allow for any appeals to be brought beyond their borders (across the sea, as the canons from Carthage read). The second is that the East traditionally has interpreted the canons of Sardica as applying only to the ecclesiastical West.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Pre-Constantinople ECF’s is True Catholic Orthodoxy in it’s purest form who are viewing and writing about the Primacy of Peter. The Catholic faith is revealed in it’s purest form while the church remains under persecution and persecuted from secular laws, especially when the Popes and Saints are following the path of the Apostles into martyrdom for the Catholic faith. This is all revealed** PRE-constantinople.**

Antiquity removes any of the myth rather than Antiquarian

 

[steve_b]

Hello everyone,

Lately I have been giving great attention to the issue which separates Orthodox christians from Roman Catholic, and this attention has caused great concern for the claims which the Roman Popes are making from the point of schism onward.

What justification does the Pope have for universal jurisdiction over the whole church?

Keep in mind, at the time of the Nicene creed, there is one understanding. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic.

Is the Church a 5 headed hydra with 5 heads all equal in authority? No.
GS:

The Orthodox understand that Peter has a primacy of honor, as first among equals, but it remains that he is an equal.

No pope ever accepted that equalization of sees.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

Jesus didn’t set things up the way you describe. In fact the apostles had an argument over this very issue in the upper room right after the last supper ended and before they were to go out into the garden that began Our Lord’s agony and passion.

Luke 22: 24 A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader ἡγέομαι hēgeomai ] as one who serves. 27 For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 "You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

As one can see, this context was an argument over primacy of authority, not honor. Who was behind the argument? Satan. How did Jesus settle this argument?

• Jesus validated “one” of THEM would be the greatest among them.
• Jesus validated “one” of THEM would be the leader over them
• And Jesus named him. It’s Simon. Jesus prays especially for Simon that his faith won’t fail through the sifting of Satan. Which means the other apostles get sifted too but it’s Jesus prayers for Peter, that Peter will be the one to strengthen and confirm THEM through their sifting
• Does Satan ever stop sifting? No! Therefore Peter’s position is always needed

BTW

the Greek word above for leader ἡγέομαι *hēgeomai *

Definition

1) to lead
a) to go before
b) to be a leader
2) to rule, command
3) to have authority over
4) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
5) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
6) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman

To summarize

• Jesus didn’t deny one of them would be over the others. He confirms it.
• Jesus gave Peter the position he has. It wasn’t by vote, or council, and since the Church lasts forever, so does Peter’s position.
• Peter is to lead, rule, command, have authority over the others, govern, control in counsels, oversee all the churches, make stable his brothers, strengthen them, confirm them, is their chief spokesman…till the end of time.
• :coffeeread:Gee,

Sounds like Jesus is establishing the pope and the Catholic Church.
GS:

It seems as though the teaching that the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the whole church comes later on in the history of the Church, but maybe there is clear justification. Anyone?

What part of the Church did Jesus withold from Peter when He gave Peter this commission? Jn 21: 15-17.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I reject your understanding of them.

How:shrug: I never gave my understanding, only the ECF’s used the term you reject “Supreme” attributed to the Church of Rome.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The second is that the East traditionally has interpreted the canons of Sardica as applying only to the ecclesiastical West.

One cannot leave out the third factors that applied to post Constantinople which are the Emperors.

How is it that in 365 a.d The Western Emperor Gratian relinquishes the pagan imperial title of Pontifex Maximus (head of the Roman state religion) bestows the Pontifex Maximus title on Pope Damasus of Rome, making it clear that Christianity is now the official “state cult” of the Empire.

Then in 381 a.d the 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.

When St. Gregory, however, refuses to accept the title, and soon after resigns the bishopric.

The Emperor’s by 365 a.d have handed over their imperial religious title Pontifex Maximus over to the Popes, while the Saintly Eastern Patriarch refuses to be given such a title? Do you know why Saint Gregory from the East refused to accept the title already given to the Popes?

 

[Surnaturel]

There are problems with the canons of Sardica. The first is that while the papacy used the canons to claim in the fifth century that it had the authority to interfere in the affairs of the Church of Carthage, the Church of Carthage could not ever find any copy of the canons or any record that they had received news of such canons. Furthermore, there exist numerous canons from local councils (most famously from Carthage) which do not allow for any appeals to be brought beyond their borders (across the sea, as the canons from Carthage read). The second is that the East traditionally has interpreted the canons of Sardica as applying only to the ecclesiastical West.

The Council of Trullo (692) affirmed the Council of Sardica (394) as orthodox and authoritative as the Ecumenical Councils. The East may have traditionally interpreted Sardican Canons as binding only on the West, but I would argue that such a reading is flawed, at least in respect to the canons which concern the function of the Bishop of Rome as arbiter for deposed bishops from other provinces. I am sure that there is a good basis for the East interpreting, say, the canon about the Pope’s authority to depose other bishops as concerning only the West. However, the only reason that such a determination could be made is because the canons also say that the Pope cannot depose or reinstate a bishop from outside of his province, but rather serve as an appellate court (deciding whether the bishop should get a retrial, but, ultimately, the Pope doesn’t make the decision whether the bishop is to be reinstated).

Carthage may never have been sent the canons of Sardica. In any case, a local tradition would be trumped by a universal council, were one to be called in the future.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Council of Trullo (692) affirmed the Council of Sardica (394) as orthodox and authoritative as the Ecumenical Councils. The East may have traditionally interpreted Sardican Canons as binding only on the West, but I would argue that such a reading is flawed, at least in respect to the canons which concern the function of the Bishop of Rome as arbiter for deposed bishops from other provinces. I am sure that there is a good basis for the East interpreting, say, the canon about the Pope’s authority to depose other bishops as concerning only the West. However, the only reason that such a determination could be made is because the canons also say that the Pope cannot depose or reinstate a bishop from outside of his province, but rather serve as an appellate court (deciding whether the bishop should get a retrial, but, ultimately, the Pope doesn’t make the decision whether the bishop is to be reinstated).

Carthage may never have been sent the canons of Sardica. In any case, a local tradition would be trumped by a universal council, were one to be called in the future.

There is a problem with appealing to Trullo, because Trullo also affirmed the Canons from Carthage forbidding people from making appeals across the sea. Furthermore, if one is to appeal to Trullo, then one should also accept the Eastern interpretation of that canon from Sardica.

 

[Schism_hater]

Yet the Council of Lateran in the 600s were not accepted universally despite being convened by the Pope of Rome and despite teaching the same doctrinal truths that were taught in the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
.

Good thing too, since, if you are speaking of the same Lateran Synod I am thinking of, therein the pope dogmatically defined that Sts Peter and Paul died at the same hour on the same day. I can’t find my edition of Jurgens right now, so I’m not absolutely sure.

 

[joe371]

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.

You do not believe that Saint Paul taught and wrote infallibly but you do believe that the OT writers taught wrote infallibly?

 

[ConstantineTG]

You do not believe that Saint Paul taught and wrote infallibly but you do believe that the OT writers taught wrote infallibly?

I never said the writers wrote infallibly.

How do I discuss this with you without the concept of infallibility clouding your vision?