Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[joe371]

The position of Orthodoxy and of the Fathers is that the Scriptures, being inspired by God, were written infallibly and are free from error. It is true that the Apostles themselves could err, but under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, certain writings of theirs, which have been received by the Tradition of the Church, were written infallibly, and are themselves inerrant, containing no errors.

I agree. :thumbsup:Constantine does not. I asked him: When teaching and writing via the guidance of the HS, were the apostles immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to His Church?

He said no. Confused me…See post 162.

 

[MartinJordan]

How do you prove one side and disprove the other side? What historical document would you need to prove it?

Well there were several churches that were started by disciples of Jesus.

The Greek Orthodox Church back to the disciple of Jesus, Andrew.
The Antiochian/Syrian Orthodox Church back to Peter.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church back to the disciple of Jesus, Philip.
The Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church back to the disciple of Jesus, Thomas.
The Coptic Orthodox Churchback to the disciple of Jesus, Mark. (And I believe these Christians have their own Pope as well.)
The Roman Catholic Church back to the disciple of Jesus, Peter as well.

So is there any proof that any of these other Churches recognized the Catholic Papacy before the schism? And how come these other Churches don’t call themselves Catholic?

How come these churches are not united, yet they all recite the Nicene Creed? Perhaps at one time they were communicating since they agree on the Nicene Creed.

It seems like a very complicated issue.

What’s the problem? Non of the above, doubt that Jesus is God. What is your motive here?

MJ

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m sure this has been answered, but…

How do you prove one side and disprove the other side? What historical document would you need to prove it?

The problem isn’t one of documentation. We agree on the documents. The issue is one of interpretation of those documents.

Well there were several churches that were started by disciples of Jesus.

The Greek Orthodox Church back to the disciple of Jesus, Andrew.
The Antiochian/Syrian Orthodox Church back to Peter.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church back to the disciple of Jesus, Philip.
The Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church back to the disciple of Jesus, Thomas.
The Coptic Orthodox Churchback to the disciple of Jesus, Mark. (And I believe these Christians have their own Pope as well.)
The Roman Catholic Church back to the disciple of Jesus, Peter as well.

Not quite. They all claim that those apostles brought Christianity in their region, but all agree Christ founded the Church, united as it was in the beginning.

So is there any proof that any of these other Churches recognized the Catholic Papacy before the schism?

Depends what you mean. They all recognize the Bishop of Rome as being the senior bishop.

And how come these other Churches don’t call themselves Catholic?

They do. Every single one of them. Not all use it in their name, but if you asked them if they were Catholic they would say yes.

How come these churches are not united, yet they all recite the Nicene Creed? Perhaps at one time they were communicating since they agree on the Nicene Creed.

Yes. The Nicene Creed predates the various schisms by quite some time.

It seems like a very complicated issue.

Yep.

By the way, off topic question. I see you call yourself “TheSufi”, but list yourself as Sunni. I was under the impression that Sufi was a Shi’ite school. Am I just confused or misinformed?

 

[Nine_Two]

I beg your pardon? I have yet to get an answer. Again, what other tradition existed?

First, I want to apologize for my abruptness. Didn’t have a very good day at work today and it is affecting me more than I realized. I read my post over and it was uncalled for.

I attempted to answer the question when you addressed it to one of your fellow Catholics yesterday.

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.

 

[MartinJordan]

I’m sure this has been answered, but…

The problem isn’t one of documentation. We agree on the documents. The issue is one of interpretation of those documents.

Not quite. They all claim that those apostles brought Christianity in their region, but all agree Christ founded the Church, united as it was in the beginning.
Depends what you mean. They all recognize the Bishop of Rome as being the senior bishop.

They do. Every single one of them. Not all use it in their name, but if you asked them if they were Catholic they would say yes.

Yes. The Nicene Creed predates the various schisms by quite some time.

Yep.

Good answers:thumbsup:

MJ

 

[ConstantineTG]

Really? I see no such support from any ECF Pre-Constantinople supporting your position the first 1,000 years. I’ll b be more than glad to read their writings supporting the current Orthodox position. If it exised in the first 1,000 years as you claim, how odd the ECF say very little supporting it and leaning towards your argument?

What are you looking for? See, they can’t comment on something that they do not know exists (the Papacy), if you are looking for them saying something to the tune of, “we’re right, the Papacy is wrong”, you won’t find it. The same way you won’t see Church Fathers talk about internet or porn. It simply did not exist then. This is why some earlier Church Fathers are being given several looks when some of their works seem to support heresies that were only recognized as heresies much later (after their death). But those who are saints, we have recognized the orthodoxy of their teaching. We just realize that they may not be as careful with some of their words because there was no controversy with certain words at their time.

Anachronism is the enemy here. We shouldn’t expect certain terminologies or the way of understanding that we have today to apply to those in the past who are dealing with different circumstances.

Now, with matters of ecclesiology, the Orthodox has always followed what the Church established form day 1. Even with the rise of Metropolitans in the 3rd century, and Patriarchs in the 4th, that didn’t really change the role of each and every bishop in the diocesan level. All these changed is how bishops are organized into synods and who heads those synods.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The position of Orthodoxy and of the Fathers is that the Scriptures, being inspired by God, were written infallibly and are free from error. It is true that the Apostles themselves could err, but under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, certain writings of theirs, which have been received by the Tradition of the Church, were written infallibly, and are themselves inerrant, containing no errors. The Orthodox do not disagree that the Ecumenical Councils were in some sense inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thereby protected from error. The difference between the popular Roman Catholic understanding of infallibility and the Orthodox understanding is that we do not believe that there are a set of criteria which can allow us to discern what has been taught infallibly (and indeed, the rather constant debating by Roman Catholics even here at CAF over whether doctrine X of Ecumenical Council Y was taught infallibly seems to indicate that the idea is nonsensical), but rather there is a general unfolding or revealing through history (that is to say, the economy of Salvation) which shows forth certain teachings and conciliar decisions to be true and God-inspired (and thus they truly are shown to be ‘catholic’, in the sense of the original Greek, being ‘according to the whole’).

I do not presume to speak for Constantine, but I do not think that the two of you are communicating rather effectively here, seeming instead to be talking past each other. I do not think he wishes necessarily to deny that the Apostles and the Fathers could have been inspired at certain times by gracious acts of the Holy Spirit to write and teach without error, but rather I think he wishes to deny the epistemological claim that we can recognize something to be without error if it matches a certain set of criteria.

I’m being cautious with the use of the word “infallibility” because that is understood differently by Roman Catholics. The Prophets and the Apostles had the benefit of revelation, which ended with the Apostles. So to speak about infallibility with them can never equate with any sort of infallibility with any bishop. It is important in this discussion that we recognize that and be extra careful throwing out the “I”-word.

 

[ConstantineTG]

How come these churches are not united, yet they all recite the Nicene Creed? Perhaps at one time they were communicating since they agree on the Nicene Creed.

But we don’t recite the same Creed.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/225936_411420985594536_1976438178_n.jpg

 

[joe371]

The position of Orthodoxy and of the Fathers is that the Scriptures, being inspired by God, were written infallibly and are free from error. It is true that the Apostles themselves could err, but under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, certain writings of theirs, which have been received by the Tradition of the Church, were written infallibly, and are themselves inerrant, containing no errors. The Orthodox do not disagree that the Ecumenical Councils were in some sense inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thereby protected from error. The difference between the popular Roman Catholic understanding of infallibility and the Orthodox understanding is that we do not believe that there are a set of criteria which can allow us to discern what has been taught infallibly (and indeed, the rather constant debating by Roman Catholics even here at CAF over whether doctrine X of Ecumenical Council Y was taught infallibly seems to indicate that the idea is nonsensical), but rather there is a general unfolding or revealing through history (that is to say, the economy of Salvation) which shows forth certain teachings and conciliar decisions to be true and God-inspired (and thus they truly are shown to be ‘catholic’, in the sense of the original Greek, being ‘according to the whole’).

I do not presume to speak for Constantine, but I do not think that the two of you are communicating rather effectively here, seeming instead to be talking past each other. I do not think he wishes necessarily to deny that the Apostles and the Fathers could have been inspired at certain times by gracious acts of the Holy Spirit to write and teach without error, but rather I think he wishes to deny the epistemological claim that we can recognize something to be without error if it matches a certain set of criteria.

Greek Father

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for ‘Peter,’ saith He, ‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’ And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority …And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone **to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine. **

That does not seem rather compelling? He also tells us that
Peter is the leader of the other apostles.

 

[joe371]

I’m being cautious with the use of the word “infallibility” because that is understood differently by Roman Catholics. The Prophets and the Apostles had the benefit of revelation, which ended with the Apostles. So to speak about infallibility with them can never equate with any sort of infallibility with any bishop. It is important in this discussion that we recognize that and be extra careful throwing out the “I”-word.

Saint. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch

Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly. (Cyril, Catech ii. n. 15)

Saint. John Chrysostom

Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)

Were these men wrong to call Peter the leader of the apostles?

 

[Nine_Two]

Greek Father

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for ‘Peter,’ saith He, ‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’ And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority …And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone **to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine. **

That does not seem rather compelling? He also tells us that
Peter is the leader of the other apostles.

Unfortunately quotes from Church fathers are useless without sources. Although I suspect I know the collection it comes from.

 

[joe371]

Unfortunately quotes from Church fathers are useless without sources. Although I suspect I know the collection it comes from.

I defer to your expertise. Did he say this? If so then it is quite compelling. I do not think we should just dismiss it…

books.google.com/books?id=v9z8p021uSAC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=And+for+this+cause,+sometimes+we+ask+for+water+to+our+head+and+to+our+eyes+a+fountain+of+tears,+sometimes+the+wings+of+a+dove,+according+to+holy+David&source=bl&ots=L8bGaPKCQk&sig=oBrPy9XWtVR8CpD4mXd0uqj7P3U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2RrNUYjVN4beyAGWsICICQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=And%20for%20this%20cause%2C%20sometimes%20we%20ask%20for%20water%20to%20our%20head%20and%20to%20our%20eyes%20a%20fountain%20of%20tears%2C%20sometimes%20the%20wings%20of%20a%20dove%2C%20according%20to%20holy%20David&f=false

 

[Schism_hater]

According to Post-Constantinople Orthodox,but not according to the words of the ECF in the first 1,000 years. If it did not exist, then kindly show us the other tradition that existed in the first 1,000 years?

It is on clear display in Acts 15, among other places.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Saint. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch

Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly. (Cyril, Catech ii. n. 15)

Saint. John Chrysostom

Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)

Were these men wrong to call Peter the leader of the apostles?

Again, the Orthodox do not deny Peter’s primacy or leadership. But leadership does not mean universal, supreme jurisdiction. Leadership does not mean that all other members cannot function without his permission.

 

[joe371]

Again, the Orthodox do not deny Peter’s primacy or leadership. But leadership does not mean universal, supreme jurisdiction. Leadership does not mean that all other members cannot function without his permission.

I thought you said that Peter was not the leader of the others…My bad…of course about the other thing…

 

[ConstantineTG]

I thought you said that Peter was not the leader of the others…My bad…of course about the other thing…

I never said that. I said he is not the manager of the Apostles. Leadership does not always mean being the guy who gives out orders, or that all the other guys need to run by everything with him.

 

[joe371]

I never said that. I said he is not the manager of the Apostles. Leadership does not always mean being the guy who gives out orders, or that all the other guys need to run by everything with him.

 

[Nine_Two]

I defer to your expertise. Did he say this? If so then it is quite compelling. I do not think we should just dismiss it…

books.google.com/books?id=v9z8p021uSAC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=And+for+this+cause,+sometimes+we+ask+for+water+to+our+head+and+to+our+eyes+a+fountain+of+tears,+sometimes+the+wings+of+a+dove,+according+to+holy+David&source=bl&ots=L8bGaPKCQk&sig=oBrPy9XWtVR8CpD4mXd0uqj7P3U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2RrNUYjVN4beyAGWsICICQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=And%20for%20this%20cause%2C%20sometimes%20we%20ask%20for%20water%20to%20our%20head%20and%20to%20our%20eyes%20a%20fountain%20of%20tears%2C%20sometimes%20the%20wings%20of%20a%20dove%2C%20according%20to%20holy%20David&f=false

The Lateran Council of 649, a letter hand delivered to the Bishop of Rome. A good quote.

But here’s the problem.

That particular council was the first attempt by a Pope to convene an Ecumenical Council in place of the emperor - and in spite of that it isn’t considered an Ecumenical Council in either the East or the West. This greatly undermines the claim to “rule” over all (the only word in the entire thing that is actually at odds with Orthodox teaching).

As for Bishop Stephen of Dora, in a quick search I could find nothing else on him except for this letter. In other words it is a very precarious claim.

 

[Nine_Two]

Again, the Orthodox do not deny Peter’s primacy or leadership. But leadership does not mean universal, supreme jurisdiction. Leadership does not mean that all other members cannot function without his permission.

It seems to me that every time these discussions come up, half the conversation is spent with Catholics trying to prove the primacy of Peter and Orthodox posters repeating over and over that they already accept that.

 

[joe371]

It seems to me that every time these discussions come up, half the conversation is spent with Catholics trying to prove the primacy of Peter and Orthodox posters repeating over and over that they already accept that.

I misunderstood him. My apologies to Constantine…