Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[Bballer32]

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.

The Coptic Orthodox Pope, Dioscorus I, was deposed and exiled by the Council of Chalcedon in 444.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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…

Again, with prooftexts like this, contextualizing them is everything. By the canons (or as the Easterners were inclined to call them, ‘the divine canons’), the bishop of Rome held the position of first of all the churches, and by custom, her prestige was sometimes great enough to sway the tide in doctrinal controversies, and (as St. Theodore pointed out), by custom, no council had been reckoned to be ecumenical without Rome’s eventual approval (he likely does this in order to delegitimize the decisions of the iconoclasts, which pretended to overturn a decision of a general synod even without support from Rome). It should also be pointed out however, that Justinian in the Codex Justinianus also confirms this right of the Roman See, that the Roman See should be alerted of the proceedings of any major synods which have been gathered. Justinian also grants this same prerogative to the See of Constantinople in the Codex Justinianus. St. Theodore was merely repeating what was already known by the canons and by imperial law, things which we do not dispute.

Now in the case of St. Theodore the Studite, it should be remarked that Rome was incapable of acting effectively to end the second iconoclasm, and St. Theodore’s pleas to the Roman see were sent somewhat in vain. The second iconoclasm ended only after the Empress Theodora summoned a synod for the purpose of the restoration of icons. None of these events or writings, however, really indicates that either of these figures believed in the claim that the Roman See could never err on matters of doctrine or morals, or that the Roman Primacy was immutable. I would also caution that one ought not assume that the deferential language used in these letters was uniquely used in communications with the bishop of Rome. It was a rather common practice stretching all the way from antiquity into the middle ages for one making a plea to write in an incredibly deferential style (in order to ingratiate himself with the one hearing the plea), and even moreso for one making a plea to an esteemed figure like the emperor or the bishop of Rome.

 

[Nicea325]

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

And many more verses clearly telling who is the Head Apostle and leader: Peter.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

If it did not exist as you claim, I find at odds your position is not mention AT ALL by ECF’s the first 1,000 years. You would think the “first among equals” would be stated numerously? Simply replace the term “primacy” in any of the ECF’s writings with your argument, then I would I buy it,yet I simply do not see it Pre-Constantinople.Sorry.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Pre-Constantinople

This sounds more like something baptists would argue in the Trail of Blood or something. You cannot delegitimize what you view as “Post-Constantinople” Christianity (whatever that means) so easily, because the very popes whom you believe to have been guided by the Holy Spirit readily participated in the ecclesio-political life of the Church “Post-Constantinople”.

 

[Bballer32]

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.

For the Record, during the times of Pope Romanus (Late 800s), the Chair of Peter was fought for by many factions of Italian families, mobs, etc. instead of letting the Church control it. Pope Benedict the IX is a different story. He was the nephew of two previous popes and so his Dad awarded him the Chair when he was 11 or 12. So, right off the bat, they skipped the elections and gave a KID, a CHILD, the Chair of Authority. He was supposedly orthodox with the Theology but was very immoral (shocker, the Chair was basically bought by the father and given to a teenager.) He was forced out in 1036 and John XIX was elected to replace him, but by the help of Emperor Conrad II, he was brought back and put into power. He was then forced out again in 1044 and Sylvester the III was put into power. THEN, the supporters of Benedict IX expelled Sylvester (who returned to his former Bishopric) and reinstated Benedict. Then Benedict’s pious God Father, Fr. John Gratian, persuaded him to sell the Papacy to him, which allowed Gratian to become Gregory VI.

Eventually, Benedict regretted this move and took over Rome again and regained power, but the Church recognized Gregory as the True Pope. Then, to make it more confusing, Sylvester wanted to reassert his power. To stop the madness, King Henry III of Germany, called the council of Sutri to figure it all out.

The results: Benedict and Sylvester were deposed and and Gregory had to resign on account of simony. The German Bishop Suidger was made Gregory’s successor, Pope Clement II. When Clement Died in 1047, Benedict tried to take control again but was forced out of Rome and Pope Damasus II was elected and excommunicated Benedict.

So, all this because the Chair of Peter was abused by noble families and a kid was given this authority. Benedict is USUALLY recognized as Pope 3 times, but only one of those times was he legitimately Pope.

 

[steve_b]

Pope Romanus was deposed.

that’s not an absolute. Note: from the time he took office till his death was 4 months.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope_Romanus
C:

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.

I said a pope can’t be fired.

It doesn’t mean intrigues of all sorts don’t happen during some parts of history.
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

 

[Cavaradossi]

that’s not an absolute. Note: from the time he took office till his death was 4 months.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope_Romanus

I said a pope can’t be fired.

It doesn’t mean intrigues of all sorts don’t happen during some parts of history.
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Indeed, so according to you, since a pope cannot be deposed, Sylvester III, Gregory VI, and Clement II should all be anti-popes. But the Vatican still includes them in its list of popes (and this does not even include as evidence that a feature of Roman Canon Law in the medieval era was that the pope could be deposed for simony).

 

[Nicea325]

This sounds more like something baptists would argue in the Trail of Blood or something. You cannot delegitimize what you view as “Post-Constantinople” Christianity (whatever that means) so easily, because the very popes whom you believe to have been guided by the Holy Spirit readily participated in the ecclesio-political life of the Church “Post-Constantinople”.

Not at all. The discussion here is not about past popes’ personal activities. And those very popes you make reference never changed or perverted any doctrine. Again, guided when it applies to matters of morals and faith. Not one Catholic theologian has ever said the popes are always infallible as persons…never.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not at all. The discussion here is not about past popes’ personal activities. And those very popes you make reference never changed or perverted any doctrine. Again, guided when it applies to matters of morals and faith. Not one Catholic theologian has ever said the popes are always infallible as persons…never.

I am not talking about the behavior of past popes here. I am saying that your attempt to reject what you see as “post-Constantinople” Christianity as being some sort of proto-heretical forerunner to the rejection of Rome’s claims of supreme jurisdiction are untenable. You cannot reject the evidence from that entire era because the papacy itself was willing to operate within that ecclesio-political world. If what you are attempting to push were actually true, then the papacy should have rejected it outright and refused to operate under the ecclesio-political of “post-Constantinople” Christianity. That they did not indicates that they did not regard it as illegitimate.

 

[LionHeart777]

Again, with prooftexts like this, contextualizing them is everything. By the canons (or as the Easterners were inclined to call them, ‘the divine canons’), the bishop of Rome held the position of first of all the churches, and by custom, her prestige was sometimes great enough to sway the tide in doctrinal controversies, and (as St. Theodore pointed out), by custom, no council had been reckoned to be ecumenical without Rome’s eventual approval (he likely does this in order to delegitimize the decisions of the iconoclasts, which pretended to overturn a decision of a general synod even without support from Rome). It should also be pointed out however, that Justinian in the Codex Justinianus also confirms this right of the Roman See, that the Roman See should be alerted of the proceedings of any major synods which have been gathered. Justinian also grants this same prerogative to the See of Constantinople in the Codex Justinianus. St. Theodore was merely repeating what was already known by the canons and by imperial law, things which we do not dispute.

Now in the case of St. Theodore the Studite, it should be remarked that Rome was incapable of acting effectively to end the second iconoclasm, and St. Theodore’s pleas to the Roman see were sent somewhat in vain. The second iconoclasm ended only after the Empress Theodora summoned a synod for the purpose of the restoration of icons. None of these events or writings, however, really indicates that either of these figures believed in the claim that the Roman See could never err on matters of doctrine or morals, or that the Roman Primacy was immutable. I would also caution that one ought not assume that the deferential language used in these letters was uniquely used in communications with the bishop of Rome. It was a rather common practice stretching all the way from antiquity into the middle ages for one making a plea to write in an incredibly deferential style (in order to ingratiate himself with the one hearing the plea), and even moreso for one making a plea to an esteemed figure like the emperor or the bishop of Rome.

S. Herbert Scott in the work from which I pulled those citations, does a good job of putting them in their context; it would be quite a bit to quote. I also note that he was an Anglican to my understanding.

The quotes he uses from St. Theodore are from at least 2 different incidents (on over the “adulterous” council called to defend the emperor who put away his lawful wife if memory serves.) with two different Popes.

The following quotes by St. Theodore to the Pope I believe show that the Roman Pontiff had more to do with the ending of the iconoclast heresy than you say:

From the height of heaven the glittering sun of the morning has sent us its rays, Christ our God has established Your Blessedness in the West on the first Apostolic See as a divine torch for the illumination of the Church which is under heaven. Yes, we behold your your spiritual light, who were surrounded with shadows and mortal darkness of a perverse heresy. But we scattered the mist of our sadness, we opened our hearts to radiant hopes, when we learnt from our brethren sent to You all the great things said and dome by Your Holy Primacy. You did not admit into your Sacred Presence the heretical deputies, but You sent them back when they were yet far off. On the other hand, You sympathised with our misfortunes as with the misfortunes of Your own sheep; our letters being read and our messengers heard immediately. And, indeed, we humble monks recognise as evident Successor of the Prince of the Apostles the Bishop who presides over the Church of Rome, and we are certain that God has not abandoned the Church of our country, because Divine Providence has reserved for it since the beginning, in the present conjunctures, His assistance which He gives by You and by You alone. For You are truly the Source always pure from the beginning and always clear, of Orthodoxy ; You are the tranquil port where the whole Church finds sure shelter against all the tempests of heresy, You are the Citadel chosen by God to be the Assured Refuge of Salvation.

(Scott, pg. 306)

How profitable the act of the Apostolic West was, is there need to say? It has fortified to the highest degree the spirits of those who fight; could anything more salutary happen? No, the Lord has not for ever abandoned His Church. But He has shown that she still had strength by exciting our brothers of the West to reject the extravagant intoxication of those here and to enlighten those who fight in the night of heresy. But these hardened souls did not wish to open the eyes of their heart. And, I call God and man to witness, they have separated themselves from the body of Jesus Christ and from the See of the coryphaeus of Pastors to whom Christ delivered the keys of the Faith against which have never prevailed and never will prevail the gates of Hell, that is to say the tongues of heretics, according to the promise of him who lies not. May therefore the most holy and apostolic Paschal, worthy of his name rejoice, for he has accomplished the work of Peter. May the choir of the faithful thrill with joy, because it has seen with its own eyes a bishop equal to our holy fathers aforetime…

(Bold mine)

(Scott, pg. 307)

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

continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

continued…

You can contextualize them all you want (and as I stated, S. Herbert Scott does give context), but this all sounds very Catholic to me.

edit: erase because of probable misunderstanding)

Do you believe that the Roman Church or the Roman Pontiff (I’m not sure which one St. Theodore is referring to here) is , “truly the Source always pure from the beginning and always clear, of Orthodoxy…the tranquil port where the whole Church finds sure shelter against all the tempests of heresy…the Citadel chosen by God to be the Assured Refuge of Salvation” ?

Again these things and all I have quoted of him sound very Catholic to me, including the classic texts which are used to prove the Papacy which St . Theodore cites when speaking about the Roman Pontiff or the Roman Church (can’t remember and/or might not be sure, one can go back and look.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

If it did not exist as you claim, I find at odds your position is not mention AT ALL by ECF’s the first 1,000 years. You would think the “first among equals” would be stated numerously? Simply replace the term “primacy” in any of the ECF’s writings with your argument, then I would I buy it,yet I simply do not see it Pre-Constantinople.Sorry.

Why do then need to state something counter to a position that did not exist? Why do they need to insist the Pope is “First Among Equals” if there was no controversy back then on the contrary?

A perfect example is marriage. Who knew that even 50 years ago that merely saying “marriage” is for “two people” would be interpreted to mean two men and two women? It went without saying back then because the concept of two men or two women getting married is unthinkable. Fast forward to today, it became a legal loophole where proponents of gay marriage has used successfully to pursue their agenda. But not too long ago, marriage is always understood in the context of a man and a woman.

The same thing you are arguing for right now. Why didn’t they explicitly said something? Because they didn’t have to back then. It was a given, everyone knew what they meant. It was a time they understood what they were talking about.

The same with the Bible. A lot of things in the Bible were a given back in the day. Today we’ve lost most of the context and usually end up interpreting it differently. That is why tradition is important.

 

[steve_b]

Indeed, so according to you, since a pope cannot be deposed, Sylvester III, Gregory VI, and Clement II should all be anti-popes. But the Vatican still includes them in its list of popes

There can be 3 popes in 3 years, but all aren’t popes at the same time. Only one at a time.

1. 
   *]Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
   *]Benedict IX (1045)
   *]Gregory VI (1045-46)
   *]Clement II (1046-47)
   *]Benedict IX (1047-48)
   C:
   

   (and this does not even include as evidence that a feature of Roman Canon Law in the medieval era was that the pope could be deposed for simony).

   I’m sure that where you got that information, also gave the canon with it. Do you have the reference for the canon?

 

[Nicea325]

Why do then need to state something counter to a position that did not exist? Why do they need to insist the Pope is “First Among Equals” if there was no controversy back then on the contrary?

A perfect example is marriage. Who knew that even 50 years ago that merely saying “marriage” is for “two people” would be interpreted to mean two men and two women? It went without saying back then because the concept of two men or two women getting married is unthinkable. Fast forward to today, it became a legal loophole where proponents of gay marriage has used successfully to pursue their agenda. But not too long ago, marriage is always understood in the context of a man and a woman.

The same thing you are arguing for right now. Why didn’t they explicitly said something? Because they didn’t have to back then. It was a given, everyone knew what they meant. It was a time they understood what they were talking about.

The same with the Bible. A lot of things in the Bible were a given back in the day. Today we’ve lost most of the context and usually end up interpreting it differently. That is why tradition is important.

Very interesting.

 

[steve_b]

Why do then need to state something counter to a position that did not exist? Why do they need to insist the Pope is “First Among Equals” if there was no controversy back then on the contrary?

(emphasis mine)

1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
   As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]
2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[ConstantineTG]

(emphasis mine)

1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
   As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]
2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

Of course. Such order did not exist in the earlier Church. If you look at the canons of the First Ecumenical Council, they were just building up the Metropolitan of Alexandria, similar to how the Metropolitan of Rome was structured. At this point there were no Patriarchs.

Surely there have been many developments in ecclesiology. But the biggest contention from the East is that none of them were ever divinely ordained. They all developed through time as a necessity of governance, not of the faith.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There can be 3 popes in 3 years, but all aren’t popes at the same time. Only one at a time.

Indeed, but if any of those popes other than Benedict IX were legitimate, then it means that Benedict IX was at least deposed legally once.

I’m sure that where you got that information, also gave the canon with it. Do you have the reference for the canon?

I’m positive that it is probably Gratian. I’ll search for it.

 

[LionHeart777]

Of course. Such order did not exist in the earlier Church. If you look at the canons of the First Ecumenical Council, they were just building up the Metropolitan of Alexandria, similar to how the Metropolitan of Rome was structured. At this point there were no Patriarchs.

Surely there have been many developments in ecclesiology. But the biggest contention from the East is that none of them were ever divinely ordained. They all developed through time as a necessity of governance, not of the faith.

ConstantineTG,

Is it yours and/or or the Eastern Orthodox position that Rome’s Primacy (setting aside for now how each side defines that) “developed through time as a necessity of governance, not of the faith” ?

 

[bzkoss236]

I’m sure this has probably been discussed, but with the length of pages, just humor me:

On this article from Catholic Answers, it gives some quotes from Early Church Fathers about successors of Peter. The first few didn’t really stand out from what I’ve gathered from this discussion, but these did:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]
. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I]
, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid., 15:2).

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]
. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Just throwing those out there for consideration and Orthodox interpretation.