Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[Cavaradossi]

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.

Then you should definitely be willing to subject these passages to higher (historical) criticism.

I also note that he was an Anglican to my understanding.

His creed is immaterial. He could have been Buddhist, for all I care.

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.

Indeed. Do you not think that his ill treatment from the emperor might have colored the tenor of his letters to the Pope?

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:

Again, this is because you do not read St. Theodore’s writings in their proper context. At that time, it was expected that one making a plea should be exaggeratedly deferential to those hearing the plea. In truth, the Pope had very little to do with the first defeat of Iconoclasm. The major arguments against iconoclasm were all developed in the East, and pope Hadrian’s letter to the council contained little more than a summary of existing arguments against iconoclasm, along with one uniquely Western argument (that images needed to be blessed before being worthy of veneration) which was simply never accepted in the East.

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”

I believe that he was referring to a mixture of things, firstly to the reputation of the Roman See for its doctrinal orthodoxy from the beginning, and also to its esteem as the first Church according to the canons and to imperial law. However, there are several issues with what you are trying to get St. Theodore the Studite to say. The first is that even with the strength of his language he does not teach on the infallibility of the papacy and of the supreme universal jurisdiction of the papacy (and indeed, the latter of these two has never been true in practice). The second problem is that this passage is most certainly an exaggeration by St. Theodore, as an historical-critical reading would show.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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” ?

We do not believe that Rome’s primacy was divinely established and immutable, nor that the Church of Rome could never fall into error, if that is what you are asking. Not one single canon from the ecumenical councils, nor the apostolic canons, nor the canons of the regional synods received into canon law by the Council of Trullo teaches this.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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:

Just throwing those out there for consideration and Orthodox interpretation.

Note that St. Cyprian of Carthage himself has rebuked the Bishop of Rome and told the bishop that he has no jurisdiction over him. So it is funny that one would use him to prove Papal Supremacy when in his life he denied it himself.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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” ?

Yes.

When I say “not a necessity of faith”, I mean things like “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff.”

 

[LionHeart777]

Then you should definitely be willing to subject these passages to higher (historical) criticism.

In what way, or who would you recommend I read on this topic? What is wrong with S. Herbert Scott’s scholarship in your opinion if anything (I know I haven’t cited him specifically)?

His creed is immaterial. He could have been Buddhist, for all I care.

I thought it was relevant because one might think he would be less suspicious of being motivated by polemics.

Indeed. Do you not think that his ill treatment from the emperor might have colored the tenor of his letters to the Pope?

I have no idea, this would be speculation. If it did (and I am not agreeing to that) then certainly not to the extent that he would say things he doesn’t believe; things that appear to me to be in conflict with the Eastern Orthodox view of that Papacy (I will perhaps touch this on this in another response as it relates to the very last exchange of posts.)

I will say I find it an unconvincing response, especially when I have heard used (if I am not mistaken) similarly with passages from St. Maximos the Confessor, and perhaps others.

Again, this is because you do not read St. Theodore’s writings in their proper context. At that time, it was expected that one making a plea should be exaggeratedly deferential to those hearing the plea. In truth, the Pope had very little to do with the first defeat of Iconoclasm. The major arguments against iconoclasm were all developed in the East, and pope Hadrian’s letter to the council contained little more than a summary of existing arguments against iconoclasm, along with one uniquely Western argument (that images needed to be blessed before being worthy of veneration) which was simply never accepted in the East.

I suppose that the Pope’s level of involvement in combatting the heresy of iconoclasm could be considered not very relevant to the topic of the Primacy of Rome–unless where it is. If that makes sense? I realize that I did respond to you though and if you are saying that this is due to a custom involving exaggeratedly deferential pleas than I really don’t have a response other than to say I will look into it. It seems you see almost as a flattery than has little or no truth and I was taking it more at face value.

I believe that he was referring to a mixture of things, firstly to the reputation of the Roman See for its doctrinal orthodoxy from the beginning, and also to its esteem as the first Church according to the canons and to imperial law. However, there are several issues with what you are trying to get St. Theodore the Studite to say. The first is that even with the strength of his language he does not teach on the infallibility of the papacy and of the supreme universal jurisdiction of the papacy (and indeed, the latter of these two has never been true in practice). The second problem is that this passage is most certainly an exaggeration by St. Theodore, as an historical-critical reading would show.

I see St. Theodore’s words as more than just stating the fact of Rome’s record of orthodoxy, but rather when he says, and this is from the other quote I think:

…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.

(In blue to show that I’m not quoting you here)

(“The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott. London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 307)

I see it as him possibly referring to Rome when he says that, “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.” If this is so, “never will prevail…according to the promise of him who lies not” and the obvious reference to St. Matthew 16:18-19 sounds very Catholic to me.

Also, St. Theodore’s reference to Rome’s position as first being due solely “according to the canons and to imperial law” as you seem to be saying, I definitely do not see this according to all I have quoted from him thus far, but this is related to a response I wanted to give to you and ConstantineTG so I will hold off.

Now, you said that “he does not teach on the infallibility of the papacy and of the supreme universal jurisdiction of the papacy”, well I don’t necessarily need to prove this in order to show that his view of the Papacy reflects the current Catholic understanding rather than the Eastern Orthodox one.

On your second point, I don’t find the argument that he is exaggerating very convincing, but perhaps you would like to cite your sources, in fact I wouldn’t mind taking a look. If such exaggeration is said to explain him talking about something he doesn’t really believe (for example, how he speaks of the Primacy and cites the very passages that Rome does in order to explain the Papacy) than I find this view of St. Theodore to be not very flattering to say the least.

 

[LionHeart777]

Note that St. Cyprian of Carthage himself has rebuked the Bishop of Rome and told the bishop that he has no jurisdiction over him. So it is funny that one would use him to prove Papal Supremacy when in his life he denied it himself.

This is a much discussed passage. How do you know that he doesn’t deem the matter to be one of discipline? And this of course isn’t the only thing St. Cyprian ever did or said regarding Rome.

 

[bzkoss236]

Note that St. Cyprian of Carthage himself has rebuked the Bishop of Rome and told the bishop that he has no jurisdiction over him. So it is funny that one would use him to prove Papal Supremacy when in his life he denied it himself.

Could you cite and quote the passage in which he says this?

And what about the other quotes I posted?

 

[Cavaradossi]

In what way, or who would you recommend I read on this topic? What is wrong with S. Herbert Scott’s scholarship in your opinion if anything (I know I haven’t cited him specifically)?

By studying the customs of the time period (the 9th century), and attempting to understand what St. Theodore meant by his words using this knowledge. It is just like St. Basil calling Eunomius a whore and a whole host of other abusive terms in his polemics against Eunomius. Are we to take that to mean therefore that we are allowed to be abusive towards those who teach heresy? No. We ought to read St. Basil’s polemical statements for what they are, polemics, instead of trying to read it as if it were a book with an imprimatur or something.

I have no idea, this would be speculation. If it did (and I am not agreeing to that) then certainly not to the extent that he would say things he doesn’t believe; things that appear to me to be in conflict with the Eastern Orthodox view of that Papacy (I will perhaps touch this on this in another response as it relates to the very last exchange of posts.)

These are things we have to consider when reading documents critically. If we did not apply any sort of criticism, we would still believe the false decretals of pesudo-Isidore, and the Donation of Constantine to be genuine documents.

I will say I find it an unconvincing response, especially when I have heard used (if I am not mistaken) similarly with passages from St. Maximos the Confessor, and perhaps others.

There is one passage from St. Maximus which is often quoted and it is likely forged, as no Greek version of the document has ever been found. The others typically are only passages where he refers to Rome as the head church, something which we never denied.

I suppose that the Pope’s level of involvement in combatting the heresy of iconoclasm could be considered not very relevant to the topic of the Primacy of Rome–unless where it is. If that makes sense? I realize that I did respond to you though and if you are saying that this is due to a custom involving exaggeratedly deferential pleas than I really don’t have a response other than to say I will look into it. It seems you see almost as a flattery than has little or no truth and I was taking it more at face value.

It often has some grains of truth to it, but we must not give too much meaning to their florid style of writing. We have to read how they write to others before trying to discern if there is anything special in their writings to the pope. The Eastern Fathers often wrote similar remarks about the emperors (the orthodox ones anyway), which nevertheless does not mean that they were all meant to be taken as completely true claims.

I see St. Theodore’s words as more than just stating the fact of Rome’s record of orthodoxy, but rather when he says, and this is from the other quote I think:

I see it as him possibly referring to Rome when he says that, “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.” If this is so, “never will prevail…according to the promise of him who lies not” and the obvious reference to St. Matthew 16:18-19 sounds very Catholic to me.

It seems to be rather vague to be claiming as support for such a central doctrine as papal infallibility, does it not?

Also, St. Theodore’s reference to Rome’s position as first being due solely “according to the canons and to imperial law” as you seem to be saying, I definitely do not see this according to all I have quoted from him thus far, but this is related to a response I wanted to give to you and ConstantineTG so I will hold off.

Now, you said that “he does not teach on the infallibility of the papacy and of the supreme universal jurisdiction of the papacy”, well I don’t necessarily need to prove this in order to show that his view of the Papacy reflects the current Catholic understanding rather than the Eastern Orthodox one.

Sure you do, because supreme universal jurisdiction and infallibility are exactly how Roman Catholics understand the papacy. Anything less, and his understanding does not support the Roman Catholic papacy, but the Orthodox understanding of the first millennium papacy, because to say anything less than that the papacy is infallible and that it possesses universal jurisdiction is to say that the papacy, no matter how esteemed could indeed fall into error.

On your second point, I don’t find the argument that he is exaggerating very convincing, but perhaps you would like to cite your sources, in fact I wouldn’t mind taking a look. If such exaggeration is said to explain him talking about something he doesn’t really believe (for example, how he speaks of the Primacy and cites the very passages that Rome does in order to explain the Papacy) than I find this view of St. Theodore to be not very flattering to say the least.

Then I guess we are at an impasse. If we are not willing to discuss it taking into account historical circumstances, then we should just stick to our individual proof texts which say what we want them to say.

 

[joe371]

Charles V said something similar as he sacked Rome.

I am just presenting Orthodox views of the primacy of Peter. That is what the OP wants…:shrug:Every time I present a quote you guys tell me that those Orthodox men were wrong. Hmm…

 

[joe371]

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.

Has never happened, even those few scoundrels, for the simple fact that Jesus’ church is built on Peter, over which the gates of hell will never prevail.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is a much discussed passage. How do you know that he doesn’t deem the matter to be one of discipline? And this of course isn’t the only thing St. Cyprian ever did or said regarding Rome.

Well, he has shown obviously what he believes about Rome’s supposed supremacy, therefore we cannot interpret anything he said and wrote down that seems to be supporting Rome’s supremacy when he clearly has displayed that he does not believe in it.

 

[joe371]

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.

You have no problem with admitting that the See of Rome is the head of all the holy Churches?

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]

Could you cite and quote the passage in which he says this?

And what about the other quotes I posted?

“For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.” Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics - quoted in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MD), p.34

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am just presenting Orthodox views of the primacy of Peter. That is what the OP wants…:shrug:Every time I present a quote you guys tell me that those Orthodox men were wrong. Hmm…

They’re not wrong, you’re just misinterpreting them.

 

[joe371]

They’re not wrong, you’re just misinterpreting them.

Of course.

I misinterpreted the part in bold:

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).

 

[Nine_Two]

I am just presenting Orthodox views of the primacy of Peter. That is what the OP wants…:shrug:Every time I present a quote you guys tell me that those Orthodox men were wrong. Hmm…

Nope, not what anyone is saying.

What we are saying is that you need to look at context. As has already been said, letters to dignitaries were often full of flowery language like that. You should look at what else they said to figure out what they meant.

Letters between high ranking figures are, and always have been bad for this.

 

[joe371]

“For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.” Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics - quoted in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MD), p.34

Now if I share a Cyprian quote with you, you will simply tell me that I am misinterpreting it.I won’t do that to you. I see this quote as supporting you. I say it like it is…Of course, like you, could you please provide the link?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Now if I share a Cyprian quote with you, you will simply tell me that I am misinterpreting it.I won’t do that to you. I see this quote as supporting you. I say it like it is…Of course, like you, could you please provide the link?

Provide the link for what? It is a footnote to a book, you can see the book and page number there. You want to read the entire context you’d have to buy the book.

 

[joe371]

Provide the link for what? It is a footnote to a book, you can see the book and page number there. You want to read the entire context you’d have to buy the book.

I found the link.

 

[LionHeart777]

Well, he has shown obviously what he believes about Rome’s supposed supremacy, therefore we cannot interpret anything he said and wrote down that seems to be supporting Rome’s supremacy when he clearly has displayed that he does not believe in it.

This is not a necessary conclusion to draw as you are asserting.

For example:

The views of St. Cyprian (d. 258) in regard to papal authority have given rise to much discussion. He undoubtedly entertained exaggerated views as to the independence of individual bishops, which eventually led him into serious conflict with Rome. Yet on the fundamental principle his position is clear. He attributed an effective primacy to the pope as the successor of Peter. He makes communion with the See of Rome essential to Catholic communion, speaking of it as “the principal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise” (ad Petri cathedram et ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est).

The force of this expression becomes clear when viewed in the light of his doctrine as to the unity of the Church. This was, he teaches, established by Christ when He founded His Church upon Peter. By this act the unity of the Apostolic college was ensured through the unity of the foundation. The bishops through all time form a similar college, and are bound in a like indivisible unity. Of this unity the Chair of Peter is the source. It fulfils the very office as principle of union which Peter fulfilled in his lifetime. Hence to communicate with an antipope such as Novatian would be schism (Epistle 66:1).

He holds, also, that the pope has authority to depose an heretical bishop. When Marcian of Arles fell into heresy, Cyprian, at the request of the bishops of the province, wrote to urge Pope Stephen “to send letters by which, Marcian having been excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place” (Epistle 66:3). It is manifest that one who regarded the Roman See in this light believed that the pope possessed a real and effective primacy.

At the same time it is not to be denied that his views as to the right of the pope to interfere in the government of a diocese already subject to a legitimate and orthodox bishop were inadequate. In the rebaptism controversy his language in regard to St. Stephen was bitter and intemperate. His error on this point does not, however, detract from the fact that he admitted a primacy, not merely of honour but of jurisdiction. Nor should his mistake occasion too much surprise. It is as true in the Church as in merely human institutions that the full implications of a general principle are only realized gradually. The claim to apply it in a particular case is often contested at first, though later ages may wonder that such opposition was possible.

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 29 Jun. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

Specifically regarding the rebaptism controversy:

It should be remembered that, though Stephen had demanded unquestioning obedience, he had apparently, like Cyprian, considered the matter as a point of discipline.

Source: Chapman, John. “St. Cyprian of Carthage.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 29 Jun. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm.