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

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=gurneyhalleck1;7025009]I think the vantage point that Anna and I have approached this quest is from an intellectually honest, fair, just-the-facts-ma’am point of view. I try to do like a lawyer and look at both sides and try to argue them. If I can argue one completely, it must have a divine and consistent, historically-accurate, and theologically-sound premise and set of facts behind it.

Greetings gurneyhalleck, I agree with your analysis here, although you introduce a variety of subjects and topics that do not relate to the topic at hand.

The Catholic church recognizes and never has removed the independency of each Catholic Church both East and West. In fact the Catholic Church recommends and encourages Eastern and Orthodox churches to remain in their theologies, cultures and liturgies. I don’t find the Catholic church making the claim of removing authority or objecting to the orthodox autocephalus communities.

I think the conflict you mention on a global scene, often comes against the Pope and the Catholic Church, rarely against an independent authocephalus orthodox church. Someone has to stir this fishing boat of Peter. Either Peter and his successors with the apostolic successors who are called to help stir the ark (Church) on troubled waters, never an independent authocephalus body can take on such an attack against the world, thus today we have many of these isolated “autocephalus” communities prevented by secular powers to excercise their apostolic powers over their Church. Orthodoxy has always remained in communion with the Pope not independent from the apostolic successors. This is entirely new subject matter.

IMHO a fact finding mission can disqualify “faith”. 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 and those outside of the Catholic Church reveal our hope in Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[jimmy]

The way I see authority in the early church is that it was always changing. There were certain standards that were always present, including Apostolic succession, but the way that heresy was destroyed wasn’t necessarily the same. The modern Roman Church assumes that it was the pope that destroyed every heresy just by his expression of faith. On the other hand if you assume that all heresies were destroyed through bishops gathering at councils and each giving one vote then you are also mistaken.

Heresy was destroyed through various ways and the fact that the truth survives is a matter of divine providence, not of papal authority or equality of bishops. In some cases it may have been the bishop of Rome that prevailed, in others it was the bishops of the east that prevailed. In many cases triumph of the faith was achieved through alliances with secular authorities. It is a complicated issue and the Church reacted differently in various times and places.

 

[scottm]

scottm,What do you think about the following quote regarding the “right” of the Pope developing without the Eastern Church realizing it, before it was too late to stop? I was really surprised when I read this.

[snip]
He appointed a Latin Patriarch to Constantinople. This action appeared to the whole Christian East not only as a religious sanction of conquest, but as a sort of theological justification of aggression. The election of a Latin Emperor in Byzantium could still be interpreted as being in conformity with the laws of war, but by virtue of what right or custom was the Patriarch of the West appointing his own candidate, the Venetian Thomas Morosini to the See of St. John Chrysostom?

In all the anti-Latin documents of that period we see mention of this so-called “right” of the Pope, a right of which the Eastern Church had no knowledge.
Yes, as far as I’ve been able to learn from Church history, that, um, unprecedented, and, er, unprincipled Western aggression, was contrary to the preceding ~1000 years’ practice of “papal primacy.” That land was outside the boundaries of the Patriarch of Rome. It was not up to him.

And of course the East would object. Who wouldn’t?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes, as far as I’ve been able to learn from Church history, that, um, unprecedented, and, er, unprincipled Western aggression, was contrary to the preceding ~1000 years’ practice of “papal primacy.” That land was outside the boundaries of the Patriarch of Rome. It was not up to him.

And of course the East would object. Who wouldn’t?

scottm,

I appreciate your cautious hesitation here. I think my question may have put you and other Orthodox members in a rather difficult position. I was just so surprised by what I read, I had to ask.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

The way I see authority in the early church is that it was always changing. There were certain standards that were always present, including Apostolic succession, but the way that heresy was destroyed wasn’t necessarily the same. The modern Roman Church assumes that it was the pope that destroyed every heresy just by his expression of faith. On the other hand if you assume that all heresies were destroyed through bishops gathering at councils and each giving one vote then you are also mistaken.

Heresy was destroyed through various ways and the fact that the truth survives is a matter of divine providence, not of papal authority or equality of bishops. In some cases it may have been the bishop of Rome that prevailed, in others it was the bishops of the east that prevailed. In many cases triumph of the faith was achieved through alliances with secular authorities. It is a complicated issue and the Church reacted differently in various times and places.

jimmy,

Very insightful: “the fact that the truth survives is a matter of divine providence.”

Indeed, the ways in which heresy was destroyed occurred in different ways in different time periods.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Madaglan]

The way I see authority in the early church is that it was always changing. There were certain standards that were always present, including Apostolic succession, but the way that heresy was destroyed wasn’t necessarily the same. The modern Roman Church assumes that it was the pope that destroyed every heresy just by his expression of faith. On the other hand if you assume that all heresies were destroyed through bishops gathering at councils and each giving one vote then you are also mistaken.

Heresy was destroyed through various ways and the fact that the truth survives is a matter of divine providence, not of papal authority or equality of bishops. In some cases it may have been the bishop of Rome that prevailed, in others it was the bishops of the east that prevailed. In many cases triumph of the faith was achieved through alliances with secular authorities. It is a complicated issue and the Church reacted differently in various times and places.

Even in the West after the schism, it was often persons other than the pope directly who put down heresy. I think of St. Dominic and the Dominicans, who fought the Albigensians, St. Francis de Sales who fought the Calvinist heresy, and the Jesuits, who fought Protestantism in general during the Counter-Reformation. I believe St. Anthony of Padua even had the designation “Hammer of Heretics.”

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think the vantage point that Anna and I have approached this quest is from an intellectually honest, fair, just-the-facts-ma’am point of view. I try to do like a lawyer and look at both sides and try to argue them. If I can argue one completely, it must have a divine and consistent, historically-accurate, and theologically-sound premise and set of facts behind it. . . .

. . . .The scariest concept for Orthodox and Catholic Christians is this: what if Christ Our Lord exists in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, etc. and He is present and manifest and changing lives not through just one vehicle…everyone wants the monopoly.

Sometimes I wonder if the obsession with Church polity (which I admit I have) and which Church is the “truest” isn’t a diabolically-given stumbling block, stigmatism of the soul so to speak, to keep us from seeing the Love and Mercy and Gospel of Christ but rather an inward obsession with our being part of the right branch of the tree. Maybe this is all more counter-productive to our search for Christ than it is fruitful. . . .

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.

. . . IMHO a fact finding mission can disqualify “faith”. 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 and those outside of the Catholic Church reveal our hope in Jesus Christ. . . . .

Gabriel of 12,
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

 

[Anna_Scott]

Even in the West after the schism, it was often persons other than the pope directly who put down heresy. I think of St. Dominic and the Dominicans, who fought the Albigensians, St. Francis de Sales who fought the Calvinist heresy, and the Jesuits, who fought Protestantism in general during the Counter-Reformation. I believe St. Anthony of Padua even had the designation “Hammer of Heretics.”

Madaglan,

Very interesting points. I appreciate your contribution to the thread. Hope you’ll stick around.
Anna

 

[josie_L]

These are great posts, gurney. Thank you so much!

Anna

Anna, the fathers saw no division between Peter and his confession of faith because they are not mutually exclusive, i.e., Peter was made rock because of his confession of faith:

“Peter’s faith is undoubtedly the unshakable rock upon which the Church rests, but this faith is not seperable from Peter’s person: it is indeed Peter who is the rock.” (Homily of Holy Saturday 33, 6, col. 556C)

If anything St. John Damascene seemed to profess a Catholic ecclesiology (based on Peter’s primacy) when he said:

“It was not of tents that the Master constituted thee the orderer (Peter), but of the Universal Church. Thy disciples, thy sheep, which the Good Shepherd entrusted to thee as head, have fulfilled thy desire. They have raised one tent to Christ, one to Moses and Elias, his servants, and we now celebrate our feasts there.” (Homily on the Transfiguration, Ibid. 16, col. 569D).

 

[josie_L]

Yes, as far as I’ve been able to learn from Church history, that, um, unprecedented, and, er, unprincipled Western aggression, was contrary to the preceding ~1000 years’ practice of “papal primacy.” That land was outside the boundaries of the Patriarch of Rome. It was not up to him.

And of course the East would object. Who wouldn’t?

Let’s not forget the Byzantine emperors, i.e., the East, was just as aggressive towards the West, moreover, to say that putting a Latin patriarch on the seat of Constantinople was simply a result of Western aggression you fail to see the part in which the East played:

Actually in 1204, without hardly a fight, the people of Constantinople overthrew the ruler of city and welcomed the crusaders with open arms with the full intention of adopting the Latin traditions. They even went out into the streets to greet their new king. The shock came when the crusaders ravaged, sacked and looted the whole city instead of accepting their gracious surrender. Needless to say they were a little suspicious of Latins after that.

What’s your documentation for the “full intention of adopting the Latin traditions” part?

The Crusaders installed Alexios IV on the throne (together with his blinded father Isaac) without too much trouble. Nor did they sack the city at that point. Alexios wasn’t able to pay the Crusaders, and popular opinion in Constantinople turned against him. The Crusaders only sacked the city after the Byzantines had defaulted on their payment and started attacking the Crusaders. So the Crusaders weren’t actually as bad as you have made them out to be!

Alexios had promised to submit Constantinople to Rome, but I am unaware of any evidence that the people of Constantinople knew this when they accepted him.

After Alexius was unable to pay the crusaders they attacked city. Alexius fled once the crusaders breeched the outer wall and took part of the city. The remaining garrison (which greatly outnumbered the crusaders) along with most of the population decided to surrender rather than fight. They fully knew the consequences which would include adopting the Latin rite and recognising a Latin as king. What they didn’t expect was the savagery that ensued. Thomas F. Madden’s ‘The New Concise History Of The Crusades’ is my source. Very good book.

Recollect that the pope had nothing to do with the sacking of Constantinople, in fact, he had expressly stated not to deviate from their route and/or original intentions of regaining Jerusalem for the East. Here is something else which you may be interested in knowing that might help put the sacking of Constantinople in perspective:

[In 1188] …(only 16 yrs before) Frederick Barbarossa . . . requested permission of the Eastern Emperor, Isaac II Angelus, for passage of his army through Byzantine dominions on the way to the Holy Land, and for the right to purchase food for his troops within them. Isaac said he agreed . . . but in fact Isaac was resolved to oppose the passage of the crusaders, and made contact with Saladin [the Muslim commander] to concert plans “to delay and destroy the German army.” About this “Byzantine treachery” there is no doubt; even the many modern Western historians sympathetic to Byzantium and hostile to the Crusades have to admit it [e.g., Emperor Isaac, in 1187, had written Saladin to congratulate him for his great achievement of re-taking Jerusalem from the Latin crusaders] . . .

[Frederick’s envoys, imprisoned for a time] returned to Frederick . . . with infuriating (and accurate) reports of the Byzantine alliance with Saladin, plans to destroy the crusading army as it crossed the Dardanelles, and the violent anti-Western attitude of Patriarch Dositheus of Constantinople, who had offered unconditional absolution to any Greek killing a Westerner. Frederick passed on this information to his son Henry, . . . to ask the Pope’s approval for a crusade against the Eastern Empire because of its treachery and dealings with the enemy. No Papal approval was given and Frederick soon thought better of the idea . . . Though a war against Christians was indubitably a perversion of the crusading ideal, Emperor Isaac’s acts against the crusaders had clearly been acts of war . . .

Everything that the Fourth Crusade later did to Christendom’s discredit, Frederick Barbarossa refused to do … The extent of Byzantine provocation of the Third Crusade is obvious from the sequence of events. It would be a long time before anyone in the West would trust them again. {Carroll, ibid., pp. 130, 132-133}

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/crusade_sacking_constantinopole.htm

 

[scottm]

I didn’t mean to sound like “the East has never done anything wrong!” That’s honestly not my position. I realize that there were bad characters on both sides.

But at the same time, it doesn’t really doesn’t change anything to say, “Well, the West wasn’t 100% bad. They were only 80% bad,” or whatever. The substance of all the arguments remains unaffected.

 

[josie_L]

I didn’t mean to sound like “the East has never done anything wrong!” That’s honestly not my position. I realize that there were bad characters on both sides.

But at the same time, it doesn’t really doesn’t change anything to say, “Well, the West wasn’t 100% bad. They were only 80% bad,” or whatever. The substance of all the arguments remains unaffected.

I was trying to put the sacking of Constantinople and all subsequent actions that followed in perspective, i.e., the East had their part and share in what happened, so yes, it does change the argument somewhat.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Original Post:

Matthew 16 (ESV): 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I recently read "The Primacy of Peter, Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church," John Meyendorff, Editor. This is a fascinating book written from the Orthodox viewpoint.

I would really like to hear from Orthodox forum members regarding your views on the “Primacy of Peter,” the “Keys,” the “Rock” upon which the Church is built; and how “Apostolic Succession” relates to authority.

Thanks to All,
Anna

After receiving a few PM’s, I just want to clarify that the purpose of this thread is to better understand the Orthodox viewpoint re the “Primacy” of Peter/Keys, etc. not to debate or argue against the Orthodox position. I have questions, and I think there are others who would also benefit from this inquiry.

I welcome all comments from Orthodox forum members. Others feel free to join in with any questions you have about the Orthodox faith.

This should be a friendly thread. I’m in need of a friendly thread for a change.

Anna

For those who wish to debate Catholic vs. Orthodox issues, there is a current thread entitled, “Orthodoxy, Papacy.” Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=474368&page=34

Respectfully,
Anna

 

[josie_L]

Original Post:

For those who wish to debate Catholic vs. Orthodox issues, there is a current thread entitled, “Orthodoxy, Papacy.” Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=474368&page=34

Respectfully,
Anna

I am part of that thread as well.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Let’s not forget the Byzantine emperors, i.e., the East, was just as aggressive towards the West, moreover, to say that putting a Latin patriarch on the seat of Constantinople was simply a result of Western aggression you fail to see the part in which the East played:

Recollect that the pope had nothing to do with the sacking of Constantinople, in fact, he had expressly stated not to deviate from their route and/or original intentions of regaining Jerusalem for the East. Here is something else which you may be interested in knowing that might help put the sacking of Constantinople in perspective:

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/crusade_sacking_constantinopole.htm

I was trying to put the sacking of Constantinople and all subsequent actions that followed in perspective, i.e., the East had their part and share in what happened, so yes, it does change the argument somewhat.

Josie L:

Original Post:

Matthew 16 (ESV):

17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I recently read "The Primacy of Peter, Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church," John Meyendorff, Editor. This is a fascinating book written from the Orthodox viewpoint.

I would really like to hear from Orthodox forum members regarding your views on the “Primacy of Peter,” the “Keys,” the “Rock” upon which the Church is built; and how “Apostolic Succession” relates to authority.

Thanks to All,
Anna

After receiving a few PM’s, I just want to clarify that the purpose of this thread is to better understand the Orthodox viewpoint re the “Primacy” of Peter/Keys, etc. not

to debate or argue against the Orthodox position. I have questions, and I think there are others who would also benefit from this inquiry.

I welcome all comments from Orthodox forum members. Others feel free to join in with any questions you have about the Orthodox faith.

This should be a friendly thread. I’m in need of a friendly thread for a change.

Anna

For those who wish to debate Catholic vs. Orthodox issues, there is a current thread entitled, “Orthodoxy, Papacy.” Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=474368&page=34

Respectfully,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am part of that thread as well.

I know.
Anna

 

[josie_L]

I know.
Anna

Good.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

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” you speak of tend to be more the Tiber than the Bosphorus and Volga…

Greetings gurneyhalleck, I agree with your analysis here, although you introduce a variety of subjects and topics that do not relate to the topic at hand.

The Catholic church recognizes and never has removed the independency of each Catholic Church both East and West. In fact the Catholic Church recommends and encourages Eastern and Orthodox churches to remain in their theologies, cultures and liturgies. I don’t find the Catholic church making the claim of removing authority or objecting to the orthodox autocephalus communities.

I think the conflict you mention on a global scene, often comes against the Pope and the Catholic Church, rarely against an independent authocephalus orthodox church. Someone has to stir this fishing boat of Peter. Either Peter and his successors with the apostolic successors who are called to help stir the ark (Church) on troubled waters, never an independent authocephalus body can take on such an attack against the world, thus today we have many of these isolated “autocephalus” communities prevented by secular powers to excercise their apostolic powers over their Church. Orthodoxy has always remained in communion with the Pope not independent from the apostolic successors. This is entirely new subject matter.

IMHO a fact finding mission can disqualify “faith”. 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 and those outside of the Catholic Church reveal our hope in Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[josie_L]

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.

"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.

Wasn’t the Protestant split the fault of the Catholics the same as in 1054?

It’s true we had some bad popes around that time. But it was not really a reform, but an introduction of novel heresy at the hands of what we today would call a bunch of liberal university professors. Luther would never have succeeded if he was not backed by Prince Frederick of Saxony, who liked Luther’s anti-Papal ideas because they served to undermine Prince Frederick’s obligations to the King of Germany, who was also the Holy Roman Emperor. For, the authority to be Holy Roman Emperor came from the Pope (who had to crown him), and if Christ did not recognize a Papacy (as Luther said) then the Holy Roman Emperor / King of Germany had no authority over Prince Frederick to ask for taxes from him, and so Frederick could rule Saxony as he pleased. And many other German princes followed Frederick’s example to gain their political independence from the German king as well, and THIS is how northern Germany (along with Sweden and Norway) became Lutheran. It was not the common people’s idea. And the same is true of Protestant England. The common people in all these places wanted to remain Catholic, but were forced by law to become Protestants. Dr. Eamon Duffy, for example, has written an excellent and very well documented book about the Protestant take-over of England called “The Stipping of the Altars,” which illustrates in great detail how the common people tried their best to remain Catholic."

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.htm

 

[josie_L]

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” you speak of tend to be more the Tiber than the Bosphorus and Volga…

Catholics do not insist that the Catholic model is essential for unity and good doctrine (although that is true), it is essential because Catholic ecclesiology was/is divinely instituted.