Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[joe371]

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.

OK,

 

[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.

Since it is an orthodox view, I am attempting to use Greek Fathers. Seems reasonable…

 

[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.

Emperor Justinian (520-533) view of the primacy of Peter:

Writing to the Pope: Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).
Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Well, the misconception of Catholics is that the Orthodox reject St. Peter’s primacy. The real problem is that we do not agree on what “primacy” means. So there is this constant, “look, this Church Father teaches that Peter has primacy. How can you reject the Pope?”

 

[joe371]

Well, the misconception of Catholics is that the Orthodox reject St. Peter’s primacy. The real problem is that we do not agree on what “primacy” means. So there is this constant, “look, this Church Father teaches that Peter has primacy. How can you reject the Pope?”

I believe that you embrace Peter’s primacy!!!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Emperor Justinian (520-533) view of the primacy of Peter:

Writing to the Pope: Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

The Emperor Justinian most certainly did not believe in the papacy as taught by the First Vatican Council, and it is simply a joke to imply otherwise. His actions during the Fifth Ecumenical Council (most especially his action of having the council excommunicate the pope), demonstrate that he was no believer in papal supremacy when push came to shove.

 

[joe371]

The Emperor Justinian most certainly did not believe in the papacy as taught by the First Vatican Council, and it is simply a joke to imply otherwise. His actions during the Fifth Ecumenical Council (most especially his action of having the council excommunicate the pope), demonstrate that he was no believer in papal supremacy when push came to shove.

OK. I want to believe you. It does not matter to me either way. Why, when writing to the Pope, did he say: Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

 

[Cavaradossi]

OK. I want to believe you. It does not matter to me either way. Why, when writing to the Pope, did he say: Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Indeed, but the Codex Justinianus (the same collection out of which that epistle is quoted) also gives the title Head of all the Churches to the Church of Constantinople, writing in a document on property reform, " Looking after all things ecclesiastical and particularly those pertaining to the holy and great church of this felicitous city [Constantinople], mother of all, head of all others…" (Cod. Justin. I. ii. 24.) Furthermore, he also affirms that the City of Constantinople has been afforded the rights of the City of Rome (following canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, and Canon 28 of the Fourth), writing to Philippus, the Praetorian Prefect of Illyria, “We direct that all innovations shall be annulled and that the ancient customs, and the ecclesiastical canons, which have been in force to this day, shall also be observed throughout all the provinces of Illyria, and if any doubt arises, it should be referred to a church assembly and its holy judgment, with the knowledge of the reverend bishop of the holy faith, situated at Constantinople, which city enjoys the prerogative of Ancient Rome.” (Cod. Justin. I. ii. 6.)

Also, the context of that passage which is being quoted is that Justinian sent to Pope John a letter containing a doctrinal exposition (containing the theopaschite doctrine of the Scythian monks), which he wished for Pope John to approve of, over the condemnation of the same doctrine made by his predecessor Pope Hormisdas. Pope John eventually agreed to do so, overturning Pope Hormisdas doctrinal teaching, and approving of the doctrine of the Scythian monks, which was held to in most of the non-Nestorian East, and also in the Church of Carthage, an event which should at the very least call into question the supposedly irreformable nature of doctrinal decisions made by the pope (or whether this doctrine has always been believed).

Now most assuredly, we have no problems acknowledging that the Roman See was head of the Church, because the Roman See was the first Church in the canonical taxis (ordering) given by the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. This does not, however, mean that we understand being head in the same way that modern Roman Catholics understand this, and indeed we do not understand it this way because none of the prerogatives claimed by the modern papacy (most notably supremacy of jurisdiction and infallibility) were ever mentioned in the canons of the ecumenical councils, nor even in the canons of regional councils in the East.

 

[LionHeart777]

I was reading “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, by S. Herbert Scott while my power was out last night (I believe he was an Anglican).

I am in the section around the Iconoclast heresy and will give some citations from Easterners.

Tarasius, who I believe was a Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote in a letter to Pope Hadrian:

Your Holiness has inherited the see of the divine Apostle Peter. Wherefore lawfully and by the Will of God, You preside over all the hierarchy of the Church.

(pg. 299)

This indicates that this presidency is from God and is linked to the Roman Pontiff’s succession from St. Peter (“Wherefore…”)

Another Byzantine, Theodore the Studite to Pope Leo:

Since it is to the great Peter that Christ our God gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven and entrusted the dignity of chief of the flock, it is to Peter, that is to say his successor, that one ought to submit every innovation which is made in the Catholic Church by those who turn aside from the truth…

(Pg. 301)

Again, Theodore the Studite:

I borrow now the cry of the coryphaeus of the apostles, calling Christ to his successor when the waves of the sea were risen up, and I say to your Blessedness who art the Representative of Christ ’ O First Shepherd of the Church which is under heaven’, save us now, we perish. Imitate the Christ your Master, stretch out your hand to your Church as he stretched out his hand to Peter. Peter began to sink in the waves, whilst our Church I believe he means Constantinople here] is still once more submerged in the depths of heresy. Emulate, we beg you, the great pope whose name you bear, and just as he on the appearance of the Eutychian heresy, stood erect spiritually as a lion with his dogmatic letters, so in your turn (I dare say it because of your name) roar divinely, or rather send forth your thunders against the present heresy. For if they, usurping an authority which does not belong to them, have dared to convene a heretical council, while those who, following acient custom, have not even the right of convoking an orthodox one without your knowledge, it seems absolutely necessary, we dare to say it to you, that Your Divine primacy should call together a lawful council, so that the Catholic dogma may drive away heresy and that neither Your primacy may be anathematised with all the orthodox by these new voices without authority, nor that wills evilly disposed may find in this adulterous council an excuse for being involved in sin. It is in oerder to obey Your Divine authority as Chief Pastor that we have set forth these things as it befitted our nothingness, we the least members of the Church…

(Pages 301-302)

Again, I’m quoting from “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928.

 

[LionHeart777]

Again St. Theodore the Studite, from “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”. This is from a letter from Theodore to the archimandrite Basil of the monastery of Saint Sabas, Rome:

We desired to be helped by the mediation of the first 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

(Page 302)

Here is Theodore (and several other archimandrites) to Pope Paschal:

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…

(Pg. 305)

Here in this citation St. Theodore references (at least some) of the common Catholic “proof texts” for the Papacy, no?

Quotes from: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928.

 

[steve_b]

No, they are not. That is why Jesus chose 12, they are checks and balances against each other, equally.

the topic is primacy of Peter. Primacy of one by definition, discounts equality of authority of all…agreed?

Here’s one example where Jesus identifies Peter the greatest and the leader of all. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10914564&postcount=153

Do you have a passage that refutes primacy of one man being made the leader of all, in favor of no ONE being the leader of all , instead everybody is an equal leader?

Even in EO not every bishop is equal in authority.

 

[bzkoss236]

Can’t the Catholic view of the 12 apostles be seen in the example of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table? Where they are all ‘equal’ in a sense, but King Arthur is still the king and has final authority over the rest.

I agree that there is a system of checks and balances. It’s not like the Pope can do whatever he wants. He is still held accountable by the rest of the Church, and he is to keep accountable the bishops who keep the priests accountable, who keep the deacons accountable. Right?

 

[jimmy]

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.

Infallibility is negative in as much as it is a gaurantee against error. It is a gaurantee that there will be no error in any statements spoken ex cathedra. There is no gaurantee that the best words will be used. But even in that there is a positive sense because in as much as it is guaranteed to be error free, it is guaranteed to offer a positive assertion of truth.

But my main point in speaking of it as a positive charism was that it can be invoked, and it is associated with the positive development of tradition. The pope can actually define a doctrine and make it a dogma.

Are you denying papal infallibility? Have you read what Vatican I said about it? The pope posesses a personal charism of infallibility that is associated with his office. That is the point of the VI definition.

 

[Nine_Two]

Emperor Justinian (520-533) view of the primacy of Peter:

Writing to the Pope: Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

I see nothing wrong with that. The problem is it doesn’t answer the question of what happens if the Bishop of Rome falls into error.

 

[Nine_Two]

OK. I want to believe you. It does not matter to me either way. Why, when writing to the Pope, did he say: Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Charles V said something similar as he sacked Rome.

 

[rfournier103]

Can’t the Catholic view of the 12 apostles be seen in the example of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table? Where they are all ‘equal’ in a sense, but King Arthur is still the king and has final authority over the rest.

I agree that there is a system of checks and balances. It’s not like the Pope can do whatever he wants. He is still held accountable by the rest of the Church, and he is to keep accountable the bishops who keep the priests accountable, who keep the deacons accountable. Right?

Interesting concept, but I’m afraid it’s not Biblical. Matthew 16:18 ~ And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Jesus didn’t say, “I’ll build My Church on you Twelve…”

Also, we have John 21:15-17 ~ When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, ** “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, ** “Feed my sheep.” **

Color and bold are mine.

Red = Jesus the Christ
Green = Peter

Jesus didn’t single out anyone else. It reads an awful lot like Jesus leaving Peter in charge…

As an American, I love democracy. As a Catholic, I know the Church is not a democracy.

 

[steve_b]

Can’t the Catholic view of the 12 apostles be seen in the example of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table? Where they are all ‘equal’ in a sense, but King Arthur is still the king and has final authority over the rest.

I agree that there is a system of checks and balances. It’s not like the Pope can do whatever he wants. He is still held accountable by the rest of the Church, and he is to keep accountable the bishops who keep the priests accountable, who keep the deacons accountable. Right?

the analogy doesn’t quite work

The pope can’t be fired, he can only resign or die in office. So there is huge importance in selecting the right man.While it is a vote of men in that process, aided by the HS, because of the office, once a man attains that office, Jesus prays in a special way for the man in this office and in extension, (he who succeeds Peter) as His vicar on earth. [Lk 22:24…]

For Peter, and in extension, the successor of Peter to do the job Jesus requires of him, it requires the ones Peter is to lead, to do what’s required of them by Jesus, that is, to be willing to be led by Peter. Otherwise [Luke 22:24-31 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Luke Chapter 22) would make no sense. The apostles would have continued to argue over who is the greatest among THEM after the last supper concluded.

They are ALL apostles. So they are all equal in that dynamic. But one is actually their leader. He’s not a figurhead, not just a place of honor, or someone with no special authority over the whole.

The Greek word for leader in that selection from Luke is

ἡγέ****ομαιhēgeomai

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.
• Jesus expects Peter to ἡγέ****ομαιhēgeomai 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… that’s till the end of time.
• So in extension, keeping with the will of God, that means those Peter is over, must be willing to be led by Peter.
• :coffeeread:Gee,

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

 

[Bballer32]

One thing that seems to pop up every time these kind of discussions happen is that when a Church Father is quoted by a Catholic, the Orthodox quickly respond to say “that is not the way he meant it though…that’s the “Catholic” view”. What I don’t get is how the Orthodox know what the 1500 year old father was saying. Now i know that this can be flipped to the Catholics to, but if that’s the case, then there should be no point in quoting the Father’s if there is going to be 2 different interpretations.

It’s like when Cyprian said “whoever leaves the Chair of St. Peter has cut himself off from the Church of Christ”. The Catholics say that he is speaking of the Pope and the Orthodox say that he is speaking of his own See in Carthage.

I hope everyone sees what I’m getting at. WE should start putting more detail into the situation when Quoting the Fathers.

 

[Cavaradossi]

the analogy doesn’t quite work

The pope can’t be fired, he can only resign or die in office.

Pope Romanus was deposed. Pope Benedict IX was twice forced out of Rome, and replaced with other popes (who are reckoned to be legitimate, these popes being Sylvester III, Gregory VI, and Clement II). He then was deposed by Pope Damasus II (who was also elected while Pope Benedict IX was technically still the pope), who charged him with simony, and excommunicated him. There are several other examples throughout history of popes being deposed as well.

 

[EIF5A]

Regardless of how many popes and anti-popes there were, does the office remain unchanged, with its authority, charism, etc?