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

[searn77]

Looks like this is starting to become Orthodox vs. Catholic. It’s hard to keep any thread about Orthodoxy from turning into this. My advice to the OP if you want to get a better understanding of the EO view regarding the primacy of Peter, or really anything regarding the Orthodox for that matter, to go to an EO forum and type your question there. If you have problems finding the main EO forum (not sure if I’m allowed to post the address here or not), pm me and I’ll let you know.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Looks like this is starting to become Orthodox vs. Catholic. It’s hard to keep any thread about Orthodoxy from turning into this. My advice to the OP if you want to get a better understanding of the EO view regarding the primacy of Peter, or really anything regarding the Orthodox for that matter, to go to an EO forum and type your question there. If you have problems finding the main EO forum (not sure if I’m allowed to post the address here or not), pm me and I’ll let you know.

I agree. There is no problem posting the link. Here is one Orthodox forum:

orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It probably would be better-suited to that forum area. Problem is there isn’t as much posting going on there in my experience and I think Anna and I both have wanted CATHOLIC and ORTHODOX viewpoints. We both have naively thought, when we started threads, that there could be an intelligent and passion-free discussion (just the facts, ma’am!) with clear-headed thinking. What ends up happening is a FILIBUSTER. You get queens of cut-and-paste throwing a zillion quotes out of context onto the board. Then you get people (Catholics) who tell you that you’re using the thread to try to convert Catholics away and bring down Mother Church. I had all this happen with the Keenan Catechism thread I started. It started off great. Catholics made decent arguments, Orthodox posters were very fair and rational, then after about 10 posts the “you’re out to get the Church!” and “I find your motives suspect and anti-Catholic!” and “you seriously need prayer in your life!” and get this----“you’re a doubting Thomas! Any amount of convincing we do will amount to your thomas-like doubt!” and “you need to pray at Adoration and fight this out with Christ!” and all sorts of nasty insults.

I call it the FILIBUSTER. It’s just diversion, diversion, character smear, and a steady dose of rhetorical graffiti. You know what ended up happening? I personally asked the mods to CLOSE my own thread! And that shouldn’t have happened.

The thread I started turned into a character trial Law and Order style of me. They started making fun of my kids! They criticized my wife and I. They told me I think I’m above criticism and that I think I’m so special and exempt, etc.

I think this above all proves the arguments WEAK when someone has to resort to this. It’s like a criminal trial where the prosecutor introduces doubt into the jury’s mind about a witness. In other words, “you can’t trust this witness. She was promiscuous in high school.” type of thing. Goofy. I see more reasonable doubt in the theology here than I do in the character.

You’re right that the Orthodox vs. Catholic and in other threads Catholics vs. Anglican always seems to be the unfortunate result.

Just argue against Honorius and you’ll feel like an Obama supporter at a tea party rally!! LOL

Looks like this is starting to become Orthodox vs. Catholic. It’s hard to keep any thread about Orthodoxy from turning into this. My advice to the OP if you want to get a better understanding of the EO view regarding the primacy of Peter, or really anything regarding the Orthodox for that matter, to go to an EO forum and type your question there. If you have problems finding the main EO forum (not sure if I’m allowed to post the address here or not), pm me and I’ll let you know.

 

[Harpazo]

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.

Honestly both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox debates have their shortcomings and usually neither wishes to admit error or budge. Perhaps that is what I love most about the lowly good ole’ Anglicans. They never claim perfection, and admit their failings and stumbling blocks.

This is true of anyone, especially those with apostolic groups. I absolutely hate the endless quote slinging that is so characteristic of Roman Catholic-Orthodox debates.

In many Orthodox posts, we see an absence of appreciation for the papacy. I often find it ironic that, without the papacy, Orthodoxy would most likely BE iconoclastic today! The iconography we see that just covers the Orthodox world was in jeopardy and it was the pope who stood up most loudly against iconoclasm. We don’t hear that much and when some Orthodox do hear that they get upset.

I can see why you would think that, but for us, Rome was Orthodox at that time and it was not the institution of the papacy itself. Now it no longer is (though we pray earnestly in our liturgy for ‘the union of all’ and this includes Rome). There were others who spoke out against iconoclasm, and many died doing so in the East. St. John of Damascus spoke out against it and had his hand cut off.

Conversely many Catholics like to give more credit to the papacy at times than is due and they think popes led the charge or finalized it every time against heresies. We often forget men like Athanasius who was ALONE against the Arian world for so long. We forget that it was often an Augustine and not a pope, who went after a heresy full-on.

I think it gets down to ecclesiology. Catholics look at the UNIVERSAL picture. They look at the WORLD stage when they think of Ekklesia. When the Orthodox here Ekklesia they think of each local diocese. The entirety of Christ, the Bride of Christ, is contained fully and intimately and powerfully in each diocese completely, totally, utterly. They don’t look as much at the global aspect and the need for a universal global shepherd when their patriarchs regionally do so and bishops locally do so.

Is this not the ecclesiology of the early Church? St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about such a thing.

And many Anglicans are falling into the Catholic view of GLOBALISM and universalism, not diocesan locality in the totality of Christ’s Bride, the Church. Anglicans are getting uneasy at the chaos overseas or between TEC and Canterbury, what have you. They don’t like that everything doesn’t fall into place so they’re bailing for the global market.

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.

I digress. Now I’ll get ready to get pummeled by all parties LOL!!

This is the branch theory and Orthodox do not ascribe to it. Roman Catholics and Anglicans might, but we have always believed that the fullness of Christian truth and revelation subsists with the Orthodox Church.

Is not truth at the heart of the matter? Clearly we should not spend all our time and energy on Church polity, but it exists for our good, I believe, though not in and of itself. Obviously I believe Orthodox ecclesiology is correct because I can see it being the same as it was in 1827 and in 1450 and in 1014 and in 879 and in 590 and in 451 and in 325 and so on and so forth. Clearly Roman Catholic ecclesiology diverged somewhere and it is justified by John Henry Newman’s “Doctrinal Development” which we do not ascribe to. We are fine with what was given to us.

I hope that helps!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

It probably would be better-suited to that forum area. Problem is there isn’t as much posting going on there in my experience and I think Anna and I both have wanted CATHOLIC and ORTHODOX viewpoints. We both have naively thought, when we started threads, that there could be an intelligent and passion-free discussion (just the facts, ma’am!) with clear-headed thinking. What ends up happening is a FILIBUSTER. You get queens of cut-and-paste throwing a zillion quotes out of context onto the board. Then you get people (Catholics) who tell you that you’re using the thread to try to convert Catholics away and bring down Mother Church. I had all this happen with the Keenan Catechism thread I started. It started off great. Catholics made decent arguments, Orthodox posters were very fair and rational, then after about 10 posts the “you’re out to get the Church!” and “I find your motives suspect and anti-Catholic!” and “you seriously need prayer in your life!” and get this----“you’re a doubting Thomas! Any amount of convincing we do will amount to your thomas-like doubt!” and “you need to pray at Adoration and fight this out with Christ!” and all sorts of nasty insults.

I call it the FILIBUSTER. It’s just diversion, diversion, character smear, and a steady dose of rhetorical graffiti. You know what ended up happening? I personally asked the mods to CLOSE my own thread! And that shouldn’t have happened.

The thread I started turned into a character trial Law and Order style of me. They started making fun of my kids! They criticized my wife and I. They told me I think I’m above criticism and that I think I’m so special and exempt, etc.

I think this above all proves the arguments WEAK when someone has to resort to this. It’s like a criminal trial where the prosecutor introduces doubt into the jury’s mind about a witness. In other words, “you can’t trust this witness. She was promiscuous in high school.” type of thing. Goofy. I see more reasonable doubt in the theology here than I do in the character.

You’re right that the Orthodox vs. Catholic and in other threads Catholics vs. Anglican always seems to be the unfortunate result.

Just argue against Honorius and you’ll feel like an Obama supporter at a tea party rally!! LOL

My sentiments exactly! I do feel like an Obama supporter at a tea party rally in almost any thread I post on here. I cannot have a straightforward discussion with some Roman Catholics on here because I am a perceived threat, or that is the vibe I get from them. I feel bad for folks like you and Anna who specify how they want to hear a certain side without quote bombing from others who are so threatened by another viewpoint.

Now, per the rules of the forum, Orthodox can no longer call those outside of their communion “heterodox, heretics” or any other such name which we have used to distinguish from ourselves. Do we call them “errant flying bunny rabbits?” I don’t know what is considered kosher on here anymore and am starting to wonder if I should just leave CAF altogether. It gets very frustrating.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

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.

Yes, Canon 28. This canon helped to push me towards Orthodoxy. It propelled me to more serious study. If the Pope of Rome was granted all these lofty prerogatives that modern RCs were claiming, than why this canon so early in Church history? Rome’s primacy was seen as it being the city that was sanctified by the death of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul (sometimes Catholics only think of St. Peter and leave off St. Paul. Poor St. Paul!) and because it was the Imperial City.

Of course Catholics will try to justify why they no longer accept it the same way they justify Honorius’ anathematization: by saying “the Pope had to ratify the councils for the whole Church!” which we all know is erroneous at best. It was accepted by Rome, even if indirectly. I believe it was at the 7th Ecumenical Council that stated that they accept ALL the canons of the previous 6 Ecumenical Councils (including the Quinisext ).

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nine_Two]

Now, per the rules of the forum, Orthodox can no longer call those outside of their communion “heterodox, heretics” or any other such name which we have used to distinguish from ourselves. Do we call them “errant flying bunny rabbits?” I don’t know what is considered kosher on here anymore and am starting to wonder if I should just leave CAF altogether. It gets very frustrating.

In Christ,
Andrew

Really? I was unaware of that rule.

How about the literal English translations? People of different belief, and divisive people. Seems even more combative, but rules are rules…

 

[Harpazo]

Really? I was unaware of that rule.

How about the literal English translations? People of different belief, and divisive people. Seems even more combative, but rules are rules…

From August 30th:

I will be moderating for this strictly–don’t use uniate, schismatic, or heretic or any derivative of them as general descriptors for Catholic or Orthodox churches or people. It’s happening with too much regularity lately. If you use these words as general descriptors, your entire post will be deleted. Do it again and you’ll be suspended. There are plenty of other words to choose from. Find and use them, please.

Problems with inappropriate content should be reported via the “Report Post” feature. Just click the image in the problematic post and fill out the form.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator

While it is on the EC forum, it seems as if it will be enforced everywhere. I was told in a PM that I could not use the term heterodox. So we will have to come up with another word, I suppose.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Anna_Scott]

Looks like this is starting to become Orthodox vs. Catholic. It’s hard to keep any thread about Orthodoxy from turning into this. My advice to the OP if you want to get a better understanding of the EO view regarding the primacy of Peter, or really anything regarding the Orthodox for that matter, to go to an EO forum and type your question there. If you have problems finding the main EO forum (not sure if I’m allowed to post the address here or not), pm me and I’ll let you know.

It probably would be better-suited to that forum area. Problem is there isn’t as much posting going on there in my experience and I think Anna and I both have wanted CATHOLIC and ORTHODOX viewpoints. We both have naively thought, when we started threads, that there could be an intelligent and passion-free discussion (just the facts, ma’am!) with clear-headed thinking. What ends up happening is a FILIBUSTER. You get queens of cut-and-paste throwing a zillion quotes out of context onto the board. Then you get people (Catholics) who tell you that you’re using the thread to try to convert Catholics away and bring down Mother Church. I had all this happen with the Keenan Catechism thread I started. It started off great. Catholics made decent arguments, Orthodox posters were very fair and rational, then after about 10 posts the “you’re out to get the Church!” and “I find your motives suspect and anti-Catholic!” and “you seriously need prayer in your life!” and get this----“you’re a doubting Thomas! Any amount of convincing we do will amount to your thomas-like doubt!” and “you need to pray at Adoration and fight this out with Christ!” and all sorts of nasty insults.

I call it the FILIBUSTER. It’s just diversion, diversion, character smear, and a steady dose of rhetorical graffiti. You know what ended up happening? I personally asked the mods to CLOSE my own thread! And that shouldn’t have happened.

The thread I started turned into a character trial Law and Order style of me. They started making fun of my kids! They criticized my wife and I. They told me I think I’m above criticism and that I think I’m so special and exempt, etc.

I think this above all proves the arguments WEAK when someone has to resort to this. It’s like a criminal trial where the prosecutor introduces doubt into the jury’s mind about a witness. In other words, “you can’t trust this witness. She was promiscuous in high school.” type of thing. Goofy. I see more reasonable doubt in the theology here than I do in the character.

You’re right that the Orthodox vs. Catholic and in other threads Catholics vs. Anglican always seems to be the unfortunate result.

Just argue against Honorius and you’ll feel like an Obama supporter at a tea party rally!! LOL

Actually, when I first started this thread, I did get a PM from an Orthodox forum member suggesting the EO forum would be a better place for the thread; but I told him there are a number of us on the forums, in the Anglican Communion, who are considering, Catholicism, and EO–so thought others would benefit from this thread besides myself. That’s why I posted the thread on this section of the forum.

And yes, gurney, naive is the right word. I was definitely naive to think this could work on this section of the forum. I set my expectations way too high. Obviously, it doesn’t matter what my intentions, as the OP, are for this thread.

So, all I can say is “have at it everyone.” The OP is off duty.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Not on the Eastern Catholicism forum, they won’t!

. . . .Confrontational, contemptuous, disparaging, inciteful, insulting, and taunting choices of words do not meet the level of charity that is required when discussing complex topics such as what Catholics and Orthodox agree or disagree on. Blanket statements (e.g. they don’t believe in Original Sin) do not respect the complexity of the topics discussed here. Entire threads discuss the nuances of such topics from many angles, and our churches’ foremost theologians discuss, debate, agree, and disagree on them at great length. Concise and disparaging summaries (e.g. “they’re heretical”) are usually arrogant and often ignorant and do not foster an environment in which it is possible to discuss, dialogue, dissent, and debate without causing offense or acrimony between posters.

For example, if a person wanted to discuss, disagree with, or debate the topic of the Orthodox beliefs concerning the Immaculate Conception, besides being more appropriately placed in the Non-Catholic Religions or Apologetics forums, the person would do well to lay out a reasonable argument, cite sources, and explain his or her perspective and personal experiences. That would foster charitable discussion, dialogue, and debate.

Quote:
Example I - Why the Orthodox are wrong about the IC - AKA: What not to do.
Poster 1: Orthodox are a bunch of heretics who don’t even believe in the Immaculate Conception. Saint A’s locution proves Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but they don’t even recognize her as a saint because they don’t have any way of teaching unified thoughts since they don’t have a pope. I’m so happy that I’m Catholic and have the fullness of faith available to me and am not subject to the whims of headless bishops!

Andrew,

Our charity guidelines do not allow posters to use confrontational, contemptuous, disparaging, inciteful, insulting, or taunting choices of words. Our policy on the use of the words uniate, schismatic, and heretic highlight three words often used in that manner but it is not an exhaustive list. You are correct to point out that a replacement word with the same intent is not sufficient to foster an environment of discussion, dialogue, and debate. If someone decides to try that, please bring the post to my attention.

Posting here requires posters to comment with charity. It isn’t that hard for most, but I’m here for those few who seem to have difficulty with it.

 

[Bluegoat]

Wow, I decided to wait until today to post on this thread, and it has grown exponentially!

My thoughts are this:

1. The verses speaking about the keys and the Rock could be understood in many different ways, and alone cannot prove anything. (Please stop using them as proof-texts Catholic posters!)
2. If we look at quotes from the EFCs, or even the not-so-EFCs, we can still come to no conclusion. We can end up with crossed eyes and facial tics, but no assurances.
3. If we look at how the Church was actually run, I think it leans towards the Orthodox position. Yes, there are examples of the papacy playing a very significant, and even authoritative role. But there are cases where that is not what is happening. Given the nature of the question, if the Church legitimately operates even sometimes according to the Orthodox model, it tends to support that model, To show the Roman model is correct it must be supported in every instance which doesn’t involve actual heresy and schism.

There are other issues I have with the papacy as Rome has it, but they don’t speak directly to the issue of the keys. The most important is that it pretty much undermines the understanding of the Church being constituted essentially locally.

Anna, it might be worthwhile, if you haven’t, to consider posting on an Orthodox forum, or searching for some threads on this topic on an Orthodox forum - I have seen them so I know they exist. They might well be biased in their own way, but they are the best place to get an Orthodox view on the question.

Also, to anyone who is interested, Canada has never had a President, and God willing, we never will. The Queen is our Head of State, and the Prime Minister is the head of the government.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Brother Harpazo, I hope you realize my finger hit the 7 key by mistake. i feel so stupid! LOL…28th canon…eesh.

Yes, Canon 28. This canon helped to push me towards Orthodoxy. It propelled me to more serious study. If the Pope of Rome was granted all these lofty prerogatives that modern RCs were claiming, than why this canon so early in Church history? Rome’s primacy was seen as it being the city that was sanctified by the death of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul (sometimes Catholics only think of St. Peter and leave off St. Paul. Poor St. Paul!) and because it was the Imperial City.

Of course Catholics will try to justify why they no longer accept it the same way they justify Honorius’ anathematization: by saying “the Pope had to ratify the councils for the whole Church!” which we all know is erroneous at best. It was accepted by Rome, even if indirectly. I believe it was at the 7th Ecumenical Council that stated that they accept ALL the canons of the previous 6 Ecumenical Councils (including the Quinisext ).

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I especially agree with #3. I wanted to crack up at the last statement though, even though I usually really enjoy your posts, goat. The Queen is in charge of Canada? LOL! And like a PM isn’t really a president with a different title anyway! LOL…and if the queen really did have ANY power in your country, that would be a darn sight worse having a sovereign monarch than a president, or a lateral move at best. Bottom line, we’re the same despite Canadians loving to feel that they’re “above” us

Wow, I decided to wait until today to post on this thread, and it has grown exponentially!

My thoughts are this:

1. The verses speaking about the keys and the Rock could be understood in many different ways, and alone cannot prove anything. (Please stop using them as proof-texts Catholic posters!)
2. If we look at quotes from the EFCs, or even the not-so-EFCs, we can still come to no conclusion. We can end up with crossed eyes and facial tics, but no assurances.
3. If we look at how the Church was actually run, I think it leans towards the Orthodox position. Yes, there are examples of the papacy playing a very significant, and even authoritative role. But there are cases where that is not what is happening. Given the nature of the question, if the Church legitimately operates even sometimes according to the Orthodox model, it tends to support that model, To show the Roman model is correct it must be supported in every instance which doesn’t involve actual heresy and schism.

There are other issues I have with the papacy as Rome has it, but they don’t speak directly to the issue of the keys. The most important is that it pretty much undermines the understanding of the Church being constituted essentially locally.

Anna, it might be worthwhile, if you haven’t, to consider posting on an Orthodox forum, or searching for some threads on this topic on an Orthodox forum - I have seen them so I know they exist. They might well be biased in their own way, but they are the best place to get an Orthodox view on the question.

Also, to anyone who is interested, Canada has never had a President, and God willing, we never will. The Queen is our Head of State, and the Prime Minister is the head of the government.

 

[Bluegoat]

I especially agree with #3. I wanted to crack up at the last statement though, even though I usually really enjoy your posts, goat. The Queen is in charge of Canada? LOL! And like a PM isn’t really a president with a different title anyway! LOL…and if the queen really did have ANY power in your country, that would be a darn sight worse having a sovereign monarch than a president, or a lateral move at best. Bottom line, we’re the same despite Canadians loving to feel that they’re “above” us

Well, I think having a PM instead of a president, and a non-elected Head of State, has a lot to do with differences between the Canadian and American political scene. Specifically with regard to how divided and polemical American politics is. There is no individual in the US who represents the state outside of the political arena. And yet politics is a mechanism for the state, not what constitutes it.

But this is perhaps outside the scope of the discussion here!

 

[Anna_Scott]

Wow, I decided to wait until today to post on this thread, and it has grown exponentially!

My thoughts are this:

1. The verses speaking about the keys and the Rock could be understood in many different ways, and alone cannot prove anything. (Please stop using them as proof-texts Catholic posters!)
2. If we look at quotes from the EFCs, or even the not-so-EFCs, we can still come to no conclusion. We can end up with crossed eyes and facial tics, but no assurances.
3. If we look at how the Church was actually run, I think it leans towards the Orthodox position. Yes, there are examples of the papacy playing a very significant, and even authoritative role. But there are cases where that is not what is happening. Given the nature of the question, if the Church legitimately operates even sometimes according to the Orthodox model, it tends to support that model, To show the Roman model is correct it must be supported in every instance which doesn’t involve actual heresy and schism.

There are other issues I have with the papacy as Rome has it, but they don’t speak directly to the issue of the keys. The most important is that it pretty much undermines the understanding of the Church being constituted essentially locally.

Anna, it might be worthwhile, if you haven’t, to consider posting on an Orthodox forum, or searching for some threads on this topic on an Orthodox forum - I have seen them so I know they exist. They might well be biased in their own way, but they are the best place to get an Orthodox view on the question.

Also, to anyone who is interested, Canada has never had a President, and God willing, we never will. The Queen is our Head of State, and the Prime Minister is the head of the government.

Bluegoat,

Thank you so much for posting. The Anglican view does lean toward Orthodox views of Peter.

You are right. I should have posted this thread on an Eastern section. This thread turned into Catholic vs. Orthodox so fast.

Thanks so much,
Anna

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

Keeping on topic with the OP is what my comment relates. Your council document brings in the politics from the world view, This document does not in any way prove Jesus not building his Church upon Peter. The secular (Emperors) powers prove that the Pope was indeed the Primate when they looked to the Pope for ratification from the councils dealing with the Whole Church. To apply a negative tone of politics to this reality does not negate the reality recognized of the Popes as successors to Peter and his Chair (authority) who excercised with the Keys of the Kingdom of God given to him personallly by God, which called for his ratification by the Eastern Emperors, which at times incited turmoil when the Popes refused to ratify a councils decision.

This does not disqualify the great Eastern and Western Saints who battled the heretics and heresies from history. The bigger picture is that they had support from the pope and or the pope ratified the bishops findings from council. It is here when the Pope kept secular powers and heretics from infecting the Church from his excercising with the Keys of Peter. Sure, we have Eastern bishops contesting the Popes, why? was it because they disagreed with the Pope and agreed with their Emperor who had secular powers over the Pope? The way I see it from you and I, is that we are looking at the same coin with two different sides, never the less it is the same coin.

I believe post #99 gives great insight to the Council and fact; I only propose to you the outcome from that council after which Pope Leo I RATIFIED the councils findings. Introducing documents before the ratification of the Pope need not apply, for me, what matters is the end result. These are the world matters I introduced to you when it involved from history the Whole Church, not autocephalus communities.

Chalcedon
When and where
451. (Ancient seaport of Bithynia on the sea of Marmara)
Crisis or controversy
Monophysites were teaching that Christ had a single divine nature and no human nature.
Attendees
600 bishops, and the following notables:
Convened: Marcianus, Emperor;
Ratified: Leo I, Pope.
Decrees and resolutions
Condemned Monophysitism;
Declared that Christ had two distinct natures and was both true God and true man;
Promulgated canons of church discipline.

Peace be with you

 

[scottm]

But you repudiate Catholic dogma in the process.

Only to one who can’t meet half way.
But sure, I know what you’re saying. My parish is under the care of the Melkites (though we’re of a separate Russian tradition), who are under the Patriarch of Antioch. The Melkite Archbishop for the USA passes us to the care of the Archbishop of Los Angeles because there is no local Melkite bishop. Thus, we have above us both Latin and Byzantine bishops. It’s a little confusing, but the important part is the official statement of faith of the Melkites.

The official statement of faith is, and I quote:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

That was submitted to the Vatican in 1995, if I remember right, and publicly published in 1996. The Vatican has not rejected it. As part of my membership catechism I was given a copy of the official Melkite handbook direct from the Archbishop in Massachusetts. That there statement of faith is in the book.

As I said, my parish is not itself Melkite. It’s Russian. But we believe the same as the Melkites. Every Sunday in divine liturgy we call ourselves “Orthodox Christians,” and we pray for “Orthodox Christians.” We also pray for Pope Benedict three times.

In short, I’m just “Christian” – part West, part East. But more East than West. It’s sort of like how Augustine and Chrysostom lived. They could appreciate differences in liturgical flavor and whatnot without breaking unity.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes, Canon 28. This canon helped to push me towards Orthodoxy. It propelled me to more serious study. If the Pope of Rome was granted all these lofty prerogatives that modern RCs were claiming, than why this canon so early in Church history? Rome’s primacy was seen as it being the city that was sanctified by the death of the holy Apostles Peter and

Paul (sometimes Catholics only think of St. Peter and leave off St. Paul. Poor St. Paul!) and because it was the Imperial City.

Your opinion here disintegrates from the OP here, because your dealing with secular powers of cities not what Jesus built upon his Church. In this early time although your secular emperors kept the peace with the Church by recognizing the Chair of Peter in a minor role to his; it took another 700 years for the Popes to get out of the rule from the Eastern emperors, then another 800 years to separate herself from all secular powers today. What you are passing judgment on is the Church in infancy, what you see today in the Catholic Church is the same one from infancy but separated from secular powers and grown in the Vine of Christ.

Of course Catholics will try to justify why they no longer accept it the same way they justify Honorius’ anathematization: by saying “the Pope had to ratify the councils for the whole Church!” which we all know is erroneous at best. It was accepted by Rome, even if indirectly. I believe it was at the 7th Ecumenical Council that stated that they accept ALL the canons of the previous 6 Ecumenical Councils (including the Quinisext ).

Let me set the record straight for you about Honorius. The Catholic Church does not try to justify the anathematization in any way. What is fallacy here, is when one takes this anathema made 40 years after his death to discredit Peter and his successors divinely instituted by Christ. Secondly the letters from which the dead Honorius was anathematized was “never” binding in any way upon all Christians, it is never an “ex-cathedra” statement here in lies the fallacy. I believe it is a far cry from civilized apologetics to argue a man Honorius anathematized 40 years after his death to be used to discredit what Jesus Christ built upon his Church “Peter” and his Successors. You would better be off anathematizing Peter today for denying Jesus Christ 3 times.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=scottm;7027751]Only to one who can’t meet half way.
But sure, I know what you’re saying. My parish is under the care of the Melkites (though we’re of a separate Russian tradition), who are under the Patriarch of Antioch. The Melkite Archbishop for the USA passes us to the care of the Archbishop of Los Angeles because there is no local Melkite bishop. Thus, we have above us both Latin and Byzantine bishops. It’s a little confusing, but the important part is the official statement of faith of the Melkites.

The official statement of faith is, and I quote:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

That was submitted to the Vatican in 1995, if I remember right, and publicly published in 1996. The Vatican has not rejected it. As part of my membership catechism I was given a copy of the official Melkite handbook direct from the Archbishop in Massachusetts. That there statement of faith is in the book.

As I said, my parish is not itself Melkite. It’s Russian. But we believe the same as the Melkites. Every Sunday in divine liturgy we call ourselves “Orthodox Christians,” and we pray for “Orthodox Christians.” We also pray for Pope Benedict three times.

In short, I’m just “Christian” – part West, part East. But more East than West. It’s sort of like how Augustine and Chrysostom lived. They could appreciate differences in liturgical flavor and whatnot without breaking unity.

That is an interesting and insightful commentary, thank you; Question? can you define for me what the Early Church Fathers understanding and meaning of Orthodox when they invented and used this term Orthodox?

And how the Eastern Church’s use this orthodox term today including the heretical Eastern Churches who have applied this orthodox term to their identities?

The reason I ask this to see if the same Orthodox from antiquity still exist in those Churches who claim to Orthodoxy today? I believe from this clarification we can begin the road of the OP’s Orthodox view of Peter’s primacy.

Peace be with you

 

[scottm]

That is an interesting and insightful commentary, thank you; Question? can you define for me what the Early Church Fathers understanding and meaning of Orthodox when they invented and used this term Orthodox?

And how the Eastern Church’s use this orthodox term today including the heretical Eastern Churches who have applied this orthodox term to their identities?

The reason I ask this to see if the same Orthodox from antiquity still exist in those Churches who claim to Orthodoxy today? I believe from this clarification we can begin the road of the OP’s Orthodox view of Peter’s primacy.

No, but that is an interesting angle.

Of course, we could ask the same about the term “Catholic” and the groups today who claim that title. Maybe the modern “Catholic Church” is not the one from antiquity. That’d be a separate thread, though.