Orthodox-What is Your View Re The "Primacy" of Peter/Keys?

[gurneyhalleck1]

The historical foolishness between East and West is well documented and I think both sides are equally guilty for a lack of charity at times and an almost xenophobia toward each other, a clannish cultural bias of sorts. The Massacre of the Latins in 1182 is something not mentioned much in here and it paints a pretty ugly picture of the Orthodox treatment of Catholics. It is awful to read about. The sacking of Constantinople in 1204 is equally appauling. We can say, “well the pope didn’t lead the charge! It wasn’t his fault!” or “it wasn’t the Patriarch of Constantinople’s fault!” Bottom line, the whole body suffers. When the troops perpetrate a massacre, often the general is called to the carpet. The recession wasn’t Bush’s fault yet he’s blamed for it. The Gulf Spill was Obama’s baby and it’s his problem. Iran was Carter’s bundle of joy. Religion isn’t much different.

So it’s not so much about who did what to whom, but that both sides had some pretty ugly behavior and I think there was a lot of cultural bias, prejudice, and pride on BOTH sides that created this. The Greeks were perturbed at the Romans for the use of Latin. Guys like Augustine (whom I adore incidentally in many ways) didn’t even know Greek which still baffles me. And some Greeks didn’t give two hoots for Latin. So language was a factor. Romans insisted on the filioque, which in retrospect was a totally unnecessary addition and inconsistent with the previous councils.

I also think the whole CREDIT-TAKING stuff we see nowdays was happening back then. Think about the 1990’s. The Democrats say, “Bill Clinton and Al Gore gave us 8 years of prosperity, job growth, tax cuts, a balanced budget and hope!” The Republicans say, “Our congress gave us the prosperity and balanced budget and hope! Your president had to deal with us, play ball, or get stomped!” Back and forth the “credit wars” still rage to this day. It’s always that way. It’s that was in sports, too. It’s no different with Church history. Catholics will give all the credit to Pope Celestine I for destroying Nestorianism. St. Cyril of Alexandria appealed to Celestine about Nestorius. Celestine sent legates to the Council of Ephesus. So Catholics lauded him as the destroyer of Nestorianism. The Orthodox say, “woah woah there Nellie, it was the entire council that condemned Nestorius and his heresy. The legates were just one voice among many!” Sorry for the Roy Rogers imagery! You get my point: credit wars…

 

[josephdaniel29]

"Wasn’t Rome left alone after all the other Churches split:

It was not really a 4 to 1 split. It was rather a 1 to 1 split – a split between Constantinople and Rome alone. The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem at this time were not the native bishops of these places, but rather Byzantine Greeks who were appointed by the Emperor of Constantinople. So, it was not like they had the freedom or incentive to remain in communion with Rome on their own. Rather, they followed the lead of the Patriarch of Constantinople and did whatever he said to do. They were not autocephalous patriarchs as they were in earlier centuries. In 1054, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were Muslims cities; and the Christian communities there were a) very tiny and b) composed almost entirely of Byzantine Greeks who were vassals of Constantinople.

Even if we accept this premise (which I don’t), the only reason the Greek bishops were there to begin with is the Oriental bishops split from the Church after the Council of Chalcedon. They split over the Christological formulation of the Council that was espoused in Leo’s famous Tome.

It certainly brings up an interesting question. If the Roman Church was considered the measure of Orthodoxy, and had always been considered so, then why would the Oriental bishops split from the Church over a doctrinal formulation from the hand of the Pope himself?

In fact if you think about it all four of the other ancient patriarchates abandoned Rome, and in the case of at least Alexandria and Antioch they abandoned Rome twice!

In Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

A good point. It’s like a family feud really. There are five brothers and there’s a fight. One brother leaves the other four. The other four stick together. Who’s in the wrong? Well of course the brother that left would say the other four but the other four would say ‘hey, you left us buddy, not the other way around.’

But a Catholic might conversely argue that numbers don’t necessarily matter. Look at Joseph. The 10 brothers threw their good brother Joseph into a cistern and sold him into slavery like so much garbage. 1 man was right, the other 10 wrong.

It’s all a matter of perspective and who you believe. In the end, it’s faith.

Even if we accept this premise (which I don’t), the only reason the Greek bishops were there to begin with is the Oriental bishops split from the Church after the Council of Chalcedon. They split over the Christological formulation of the Council that was espoused in Leo’s famous Tome.

It certainly brings up an interesting question. If the Roman Church was considered the measure of Orthodoxy, and had always been considered so, then why would the Oriental bishops split from the Church over a doctrinal formulation from the hand of the Pope himself?

In fact if you think about it all four of the other ancient patriarchates abandoned Rome, and in the case of at least Alexandria and Antioch they abandoned Rome twice!

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

A good point. It’s like a family feud really. There are five brothers and there’s a fight. One brother leaves the other four. The other four stick together. Who’s in the wrong? Well of course the brother that left would say the other four but the other four would say ‘hey, you left us buddy, not the other way around.’

But a Catholic might conversely argue that numbers don’t necessarily matter. Look at Joseph. The 10 brothers threw their good brother Joseph into a cistern and sold him into slavery like so much garbage. 1 man was right, the other 10 wrong.

It’s all a matter of perspective and who you believe. In the end, it’s faith.

It certainly is a matter of perspective but consider this. Catholics tell us here all the time that the pope was always considered the measure of orthodoxy and that his supreme jurisdiction was always accepted; and yet here we have bishops clearly behaving as if they don’t believe that, and acting like that on many occasions over long periods of time. You have the Chalcedonian schism, the Great Schism, the Meletian schism, Dioscorus excommunicating Pope Leo, Cyprian rebuking Victor, councils called against the pope’s will and without his knowledge, multiple occasions of the pope being struck from the diptychs of various Churches and many more.

Can you imagine any of these things happening in the modern Catholic Church? I doubt it very seriously. Why is that? All of us here are fond of pulling out quote after quote that supposedly proves our position but words are just that, words. Surely actions count for something?

In Christ
Joe

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Anna Scott;7025519]gurney,

Oh noooo. You’ve gone philosophical on my fact-finding thread. lol. You know I agonize daily over my walk with Christ; and certainly the many quarrels within Christianity can become a “diabolically-given stumbling block,” and “astigmatism of the soul. . .to keep us from seeing the Love and Mercy and Gospel of Christ.” You know I am well acquainted with the inward obsession of finding the right branch of the tree. It seems to be an “Anglican epidemic” at least here on the forums.

Since, I’ve said a number of times on this thread, that I am on a fact finding mission; I will comment, even though this was directed to gurney.

You do bring up a very valid point, as did gurney in his “philosophical” comments above. One can become so focused on facts and history that faith is overshadowed. There are times when I have to step away from all of this searching and questioning and concentrate solely on prayer and meditation. I’ve had discussions with gurney about this very issue.

No doubt, intellectual pursuits can distract us from our faith. As you said, “Jesus Christ died, resurrected and ascended into heaven to draw all men to faith. Faith witnessed reveals our hope where facts get revealed by secular history. . . .” Very true.

On the other hand, we need to know our history as Christians. Having come out of the Baptist Church, through prayerful study of Scripture, Christian history, and tradition; I have experienced the great value of learning the origin and development of ideas and the reasons for schisms, protests, etc. I think we have to find a balance.

Anyway, back to the Orthodox faith. . . . .

Anna

May God bless you and keep you in all Truth Anna on your journey. Let us not forget gurney’s subliminal message of charity from his post. I don’t think the differences between Orthodox not in communion with the pope is the problem. I hold to the opinion that pride of men and lack of charity always get in the way. When we Christians can overcome these as gurney suggests with charity then the boundaries disappear.

There is so much to discuss on this topic at large, I pray both Catholic and Orthodox remain in charity. What I find comical here is that both east and west Catholic Church’s believe in the same Mother of our Savior Jesus and share a devotion to the blessed Virgin Mary, yet as brothers from the same Father and Mother we act like typical (syblings) brothers in the same household. Did you know you carry our spiritual grandmothers name?

I am glad to learn of your wisdom here to discern between faith, fact and Christian Traditions handed down from the apostles.

Peace be with you

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And peace be with you Gabriel. I always find you to be a temperate, charitable, caring poster who is a credit to Catholicism. Blessings this evening!

Gabriel_of_12:
May God bless you and keep you in all Truth Anna on your journey. Let us not forget gurney’s subliminal message of charity from his post. I don’t think the differences between Orthodox not in communion with the pope is the problem. I hold to the opinion that pride of men and lack of charity always get in the way. When we Christians can overcome these as gurney suggests with charity then the boundaries disappear.

There is so much to discuss on this topic at large, I pray both Catholic and Orthodox remain in charity. What I find comical here is that both east and west Catholic Church’s believe in the same Mother of our Savior Jesus and share a devotion to the blessed Virgin Mary, yet as brothers from the same Father and Mother we act like typical (syblings) brothers in the same household. Did you know you carry our spiritual grandmothers name?

I am glad to learn of your wisdom here to discern between faith, fact and Christian Traditions handed down from the apostles.

Peace be with you

 

[Nine_Two]

It certainly is a matter of perspective but consider this. Catholics tell us here all the time that the pope was always considered the measure of orthodoxy and that his supreme jurisdiction was always accepted; and yet here we have bishops clearly behaving as if they don’t believe that, and acting like that on many occasions over long periods of time. You have the Chalcedonian schism, the Great Schism, the Meletian schism, Dioscorus excommunicating Pope Leo, Cyprian rebuking Victor, councils called against the pope’s will and without his knowledge, multiple occasions of the pope being struck from the diptychs of various Churches and many more.

Can you imagine any of these things happening in the modern Catholic Church? I doubt it very seriously. Why is that? All of us here are fond of pulling out quote after quote that supposedly proves our position but words are just that, words. Surely actions count for something?

In Christ
Joe

You would think that in the aftermath of Chalcedon that if the Bishops remaining believed it was Rome who ruled, that they would have made a point to add that either when it became obvious that some were going to leave, or in the next major council, yet no canons exist anywhere, outside of Rome’s “ecumenical councils” that codify such a place in the hierarchy.

 

[scottm]

A good point. It’s like a family feud really. There are five brothers and there’s a fight. One brother leaves the other four. The other four stick together. Who’s in the wrong? Well of course the brother that left would say the other four but the other four would say ‘hey, you left us buddy, not the other way around.’

But a Catholic might conversely argue that numbers don’t necessarily matter. Look at Joseph. The 10 brothers threw their good brother Joseph into a cistern and sold him into slavery like so much garbage. 1 man was right, the other 10 wrong.

It’s all a matter of perspective and who you believe. In the end, it’s faith.

There’s a lot of wisdom in what you just said, and it fits into why I went Eastern Catholic. I don’t really want to pick sides. I like aspects of both. I want to experience both.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m not Orthodox, obviously, so I don’t have a pony in the race as you do, Gabe. But I would say probably that from the steering the boat position, the Orthodox view it like there were Five Patriarchates: Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem. One of the fishermen jumped off the ship to leave the other four to steer. I think you get my “drift,” pardon the pun.

Also I think Orthodox tend to righly point out that autocephaly has worked fine for them. Their lack of a central command worked out pretty well, no Reformation, no Martin Luther, no John Calvin, no Old Catholics or need to have a Vatican II, no liturgically watered-down modern pandering, no need for a counter-reformation, and they’re just not a scandal-prone body either. They’ve done pretty well without the Roman model that Catholics in here insist is essential to unity and good doctrine. They’ve had unity and doctrine without the pope.

The troubled waters in the world can surely be a matter of debate against the Church from all of history, but the rest of your post hits right on the nail, so I say to you “preach it brotha”. More communication is needed in these areas of agreement, and I believe more gets revealed in these communications of the facts.

Peace be with you

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The 27th canon of the Council of Chalcedon always fascinates me. It not only puts Constantinople on a par with Rome, but it lays out the reasoning why Rome was always given a primacy. It was NOT because of Matthew 16:18 or keys or Peter, it was politically the fact that Rome was the capital city, the heart of the Empire, THE city of cities for its heydey, the New York or London of Antiquity. And when Constantinople became the “new Rome” it took on a sort of co-primacy and ascendancy. It’s fascinating. Here’s the canon and keep in mind this is from an ecumenical council, not some private Orthodox bishop:

***Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome***, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

 

[josie_L]

Even if we accept this premise (which I don’t), the only reason the Greek bishops were there to begin with is the Oriental bishops split from the Church after the Council of Chalcedon. They split over the Christological formulation of the Council that was espoused in Leo’s famous Tome.

It certainly brings up an interesting question. If the Roman Church was considered the measure of Orthodoxy, and had always been considered so, then why would the Oriental bishops split from the Church over a doctrinal formulation from the hand of the Pope himself?

In fact if you think about it all four of the other ancient patriarchates abandoned Rome, and in the case of at least Alexandria and Antioch they abandoned Rome twice!

In Christ
Joe

This doesn’t make any sense as I’m making a point about the time period mentioned during the split, i.e., many people believe that it was a 4 to 1 split (in 1054) when in reality it was really a 1 to 1 split (for the reasons mentioned in the article).

p.s. There are will always be heretics who repudiate the truth whether it be expressed by the Pope or by an ecumenical council or by both. This does not tarnish or repudiate Catholic claims that Rome was a font of orthodoxy anymore than Judas’s repudiation of Jesus tarnishes his claims to divinity.

 

[Nine_Two]

This doesn’t make any sense as I’m making a point about the time period mentioned during the split, i.e., many people believe that it was a 4 to 1 split (in 1054) when in reality it was really a 1 to 1 split (for the reasons mentioned in the article).

p.s. There are will always be heretics who repudiate the truth whether it be expressed by the Pope or by an ecumenical council or by both. This does not tarnish or repudiate Catholic claims that Rome was a font of orthodoxy anymore than Judas’s repudiation of Jesus tarnishes his claims to divinity.

Do you have a source saying they were appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople at that time?

 

[josie_L]

There’s a lot of wisdom in what you just said, and it fits into why I went Eastern Catholic. I don’t really want to pick sides. I like aspects of both. I want to experience both.

But you repudiate Catholic dogma in the process.

 

[josie_L]

Do you have a source saying they were appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople at that time?

Yes, the one I gave to Gurney, do you have a source saying otherwise, I’ll be glad to hear of it if you do?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The 27th canon of the Council of Chalcedon always fascinates me. It not only puts Constantinople on a par with Rome, but it lays out the reasoning why Rome was always given a primacy. It was NOT because of Matthew 16:18 or keys or Peter, it was politically the fact that Rome was the capital city, the heart of the Empire, THE city of cities for its heydey, the New York or London of Antiquity. And when Constantinople became the “new Rome” it took on a sort of co-primacy and ascendancy. It’s fascinating. Here’s the canon and keep in mind this is from an ecumenical council, not some private Orthodox bishop:

***Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome***, ]in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

Come on gurney see the highlight, ecumenical council or not a celebration was enacted from here from the Emperors newly built city ( home) in Constantinople. This does not weigh in on what Jesus states from Matthew 16 13-18. No one contests that the Eastern bishops looked to their Eastern Emperor’s as suppport for authority when the Eastern Emperors looked for the approval from the Western Popes in Rome on Church matters. I can only ask what is an Emperor’s name doing on an ecumenical document?

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes, the one I gave you, do you have a source saying otherwise, I’ll be glad to hear of it if you do?

A weblog that doesn’t cite its sources does not count as a source. Do you have a proper source?

 

[josie_L]

A weblog that doesn’t cite its sources does not count as a source. Do you have a proper source?

If you wish I will find it for you, do you have a source that states otherwise?

 

[Nine_Two]

If you wish I will find it for you, do you have a source that states otherwise?

Please do find it for me. The onus is on the one claiming an unusual set of circumstances. It is unlikely anyone would record “Everything is done exactly as it always was.”

 

[josie_L]

The 27th canon of the Council of Chalcedon always fascinates me. It not only puts Constantinople on a par with Rome, but it lays out the reasoning why Rome was always given a primacy. It was NOT because of Matthew 16:18 or keys or Peter, it was politically the fact that Rome was the capital city, the heart of the Empire, THE city of cities for its heydey, the New York or London of Antiquity. And when Constantinople became the “new Rome” it took on a sort of co-primacy and ascendancy. It’s fascinating. Here’s the canon and keep in mind this is from an ecumenical council, not some private Orthodox bishop:

***Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome***, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

First, canon 28 does not put Constantinople on par with Rome, i.e., it did not attain the primacy but was second to Rome, however, since I was debating this very thing on another thread, let me provide my response in full:

The bishops to which you refer to were but 160 or so (out of 600) that were present at Chalcedon during the last session, and they all coincidentally were connected to Constantinople or thereabouts, the actual words spoken by Anatolius (patriarch of Constantinople) conveys the reality of the situation during Chalcedon:

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. – Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

The fact of the matter is that those bishops who concocted canon 28 did so probably at the behest of the emperor, moreover, they erred in believing that Rome had the primacy because of political reasons (Ravenna and Milan were also capitals of emperors yet they never were given a special place within the Church). What you fail to see is that Pope St. Leo did veto (he even wrote a letter to the empress) the canon, and it was accepted, as such even historians and Church fathers wrote about 27 canons rather than 28. Here is a list of them:

This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm

Moreover, if Rome’s primacy was based solely on political reasons why then did Constantinople still remain second to Rome? You would think that Constantinople would have superceded Rome if based primarily on political stature, but it isn’t, and that is why it will always remain second to Rome, i.e., it was Peter who was chief amongst the apostles, it is Rome who will be chief see within the Church. If you cannot accept that then it is you who deny Tradition/Scripture not I.

Furthermore, Trullo (which was presided over by Emperor Justinian II) was not accepted by the West, although the emperor went to great lenghts to have him confirm it:

Pope Sergius I protested the council, and refused to sign the canons. At Sergius’s refusal, Justinian dispatched a military delegation to Rome to induce Sergius to sign; the imperial army at Ravenna, however, composed mainly of native Italians, rallied to support the Roman Pontiff, marching on Rome.757–768).[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council

The Trullo council quite frankly is a farce, and it is a prime example of the Emperor’s power in the East.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This came from a council and was a canon. You’re telling me that politics plays into all this. Duh. That’s exactly the point I’m making!! Rome was a political juggarnaut! It was the capital of the empire and that’s the main reason it had a huge amount of clout and pull. This document hints at that. Rome was political. Constantinople was political. To some degree it’s all political even in 2010. That’s my point. Perhaps I’m not getting your point here? Restate it for me. Either I’m dense or your wording just doesn’t do it for me here, Gabe.

Come on gurney see the highlight, ecumenical council or not a celebration was enacted from here from the Emperors newly built city ( home) in Constantinople. This does not weigh in on what Jesus states from Matthew 16 13-18. No one contests that the Eastern bishops looked to their Eastern Emperor’s as suppport for authority when the Eastern Emperors looked for the approval from the Western Popes in Rome on Church matters. I can only ask what is an Emperor’s name doing on an ecumenical document?