Orthodoxy, Papacy

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I was baptised/confirmed Catholic 7 years ago, and have been observant and active ever since.

Recently, my wife and I, who is Russian Orthodox, have come to a point where we realize that our interfaith marriage is an untenable position for us. IN NO WAY DOES THIS SUGGEST DIVORCE, I do not mean for it to be taken like that.

What it means is that we, as traditionalist Christians, cannot subscribe to the idea that one faith is good for one person and one for another. That is relativism. It’s not good for either of our faiths, or for our young children, 8 months old and 2 years old.

Together, we have been exploring the tenets/histories of each of our faiths. There is no question to either of us that one of our churches is true; apostolic succession and tradition is overwhelmingly important.

What the question essentially boils down to on an intellectual level (which of course is only half the battle, if even), after plenty of fiddling about with innumerable bits of theology/history, etc, is that all disputes come back to the Roman Catholic view of the papacy vs. the Orthodox view, and on this I’m just not convinced anymore. I have yet to find conclusive proof that, though the Bishop of Rome had primacy of honor, he had any more than that, indeed, I’m finding it difficult to even establish that Peter ever held a seat in Rome, or a firm place of last word leadership over the early church.

I hate feeling torn like this, especially on something that, truly is the MOST important part of life. Help!

As you have noted, Orthodox Christians will admit that there is a primacy of honor for the Roman Bishop.

Ask your wife how she observes this primacy of honor.

I think you will both see that this primacy of honor has been discarded by the Orthodox Church.

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve.

The specific references you will find is on this website: Google {Why i abandoned papism}

Re: Paul Ballaster-Convolier, I responded to that in the past

He says he was a Franciscan from a monastary in Spain. What monastary?
He says he was reordering library cartalogs. Since these were so important, which catalogues were they? Names? Authors?
He says he came accross an article dated1647. “This article described a decision of the Holy Inquisition that anathematized as heretic any who dared believe, accept or preach to others that he supported the apostolic validity of the Apostle Paul.” What’s the name of the article? Who wrote it?
Then he says “However, my disturbance and my surprise became greater after researching and confirming that the decision of the Holy Inquisition that was referred to in the article was authentic.” Oh really! What article? What author? What date? What makes it authentic?
Then he says “In fact already during two earlier occasions, namely in 1327 and 1331, the Popes John 22nd and Clemens 6th had condemned and anathematized any one who dared deny that the Apostle Paul during his entire apostolic life, was totally subordinate to the ecclesiastic monarchal authority of the first Pope and king of the Church, namely the Apostle Peter.” Pope Clement VI wasn’t pope till 1342. So how could he as pope condemn anyone in 1327 or 1331? Can you show where a pope called St Peter king of the Church? It is true that Paul went to see Peter twice, once to make sure his preaching was correct and he wasn’t running in vain.
Then he writes “And a lot later Pope Pius 10th, in 1907 and Benedict 15th, in 1920, had repeated the same anathemas and the same condemnations”. Where? What document?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6459146&postcount=738

It’s amazing to me the junk people will swallow.

 

[shaky]

Re: Paul Ballaster-Convolier, I responded to that in the past

He says he was a Franciscan from a monastary in Spain. What monastary?
He says he was reordering library cartalogs. Since these were so important, which catalogues were they? Names? Authors?
He says he came accross an article dated1647. “This article described a decision of the Holy Inquisition that anathematized as heretic any who dared believe, accept or preach to others that he supported the apostolic validity of the Apostle Paul.” What’s the name of the article? Who wrote it?
Then he says “However, my disturbance and my surprise became greater after researching and confirming that the decision of the Holy Inquisition that was referred to in the article was authentic.” Oh really! What article? What author? What date? What makes it authentic?
Then he says “In fact already during two earlier occasions, namely in 1327 and 1331, the Popes John 22nd and Clemens 6th had condemned and anathematized any one who dared deny that the Apostle Paul during his entire apostolic life, was totally subordinate to the ecclesiastic monarchal authority of the first Pope and king of the Church, namely the Apostle Peter.” Pope Clement VI wasn’t pope till 1342. So how could he as pope condemn anyone in 1327 or 1331? Can you show where a pope called St Peter king of the Church? It is true that Paul went to see Peter twice, once to make sure his preaching was correct and he wasn’t running in vain.
Then he writes “And a lot later Pope Pius 10th, in 1907 and Benedict 15th, in 1920, had repeated the same anathemas and the same condemnations”. Where? What document?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6459146&postcount=738

It’s amazing to me the junk people will swallow.

I have not swallowed anything yet: I am looking into both sides of the Argument:shrug:

So called Christians should not lie or be presumptuous. I will dig deeper and see if i can
Come with documents.

 

[shaky]

That stuff is a little shaky, shaky. Try some reliable sources. The ‘information’ you stated is, or implies, clear error and came to you from someone who doesn’t know the history of the Church.

Hi ferde Rombola

Can you point out and make a list what you find is clear error So i can check things out.

 

[steve_b]

I have not swallowed anything yet: I am looking into both sides of the Argument:shrug:

An Orthodox poster gave that same article you did in making HIS argument, which I happened to respond to. When I read that article from Paul Ballaster-Convolier’, “Why I abandoned Papism” I was stunned it got traction with ANYONE with a critical mind. As you could see, he gave absolutely ZERO references to any accusation he made. It was pure * nonsense.
s:

So called Christians should not lie or be presumptuous. I will dig deeper and see if i can
Come with documents.

Happy hunting. The Orthodox poster who posted that article 1st, didn’t come back with anything.*

 

[joe370]

Harpazo, you said:

I was not aware that we even had a “spiritual leader of world Orthodoxy.” I do recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as the primus inter pares of the Orthodox Church, but his abilities and prerogatives are limited and do not make him our spiritual leader. Christ is.

How does Jesus Christ, who is no longer here, spiritually lead His church, or should I say, church(es) into all truth? Is Christ the leader of the CC, the EOC and all of the PC’s in the world today; if so, then why is Jesus spiritually leading these isolated churches in different directions, doctrinally speaking, and of course I mean no disrespect to any one church, nor am I suggesting that the spirit of Christ is not present in any one church?

Did Jesus leave the world with the means to infallibly know truth, regardless of the chaff mixed with wheat, or is truth regarding certain doctrines eg the Eucharist, no longer infallibly knowable?

 

[joe370]

And I can just as quickly produce for you twenty quotes from Augustine he gave later in his life showing that the “Rock” was the confession Peter made, not the man Peter himself. Proof-texting the Fathers is a two-way street between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Which begs the question: why did so many people prior to and during his life time, declare that Peter was in fact the rock on which Jesus built His church, and for that matter, why did Augustine admit it as well?

“These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter and to believe that the Church has received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very keys from their own hands.” (Augustine, Christian Combat).

“It is grievous when we see you thus lying cut off. Number the bishops from the See of Peter. **And, in that order of fathers, see whom succeeded whom. This is the Rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. **All who rejoice in peace, only judge truly.” - St. Augustine

What are your thoughts?

 

[Hesychios]

As you have noted, Orthodox Christians will admit that there is a primacy of honor for the Roman Bishop.

That is inapplicable so long as the bishop of Rome is outside of the church.

 

[prodromos]

An Orthodox poster gave that same article you did in making HIS argument, which I happened to respond to. When I read that article from Paul Ballaster-Convolier’, “Why I abandoned Papism” I was stunned it got traction with ANYONE with a critical mind. As you could see, he gave absolutely ZERO references to any accusation he made. It was pure * nonsense.*Its easy to call something nonsense when the sources necessary to confirm or deny the matter are in another country on the other side of the planet. The man was a monk and later became a bishop in the Orthodox Church, I don’t believe his testimony can be so easily dismissed,

Happy hunting. The Orthodox poster who posted that article 1st, didn’t come back with anything.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Hi ferde Rombola

Can you point out and make a list what you find is clear error So i can check things out.

Steve has made a good start. Just about all you allege is either a half truth or clear error.

Peter being the head of the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ in Rome is wrong. There was no ‘Roman Catholic Church’ when Peter was bishop there.

The five Patriarchial Sees were not in existence ‘in the beginning.’

Paul was never ‘Bishop of Antioch.’

The ‘head bishop of Rome deciding the Roman Church to be supreme’ is absurd.

Everything you say referencing the year 1000 AD is inaccurate and uninformed.

Your statement there is no evidence in the Bible of Peter’s authority over Paul and James is wrong.

The anethemas you allege are news to me and I’ve been a Catholic for a long time. You have not provided a single citation to support these wild, fanciful charges you have made.

Your entire message is nothing but one fabrication after another with not a hint of scholarship behind it.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

That is inapplicable so long as the bishop of Rome is outside of the church.

That’s very funny, Michael. Continuing along, where does it say the Bishop of Rome has to be inside what you define as ‘the church’ in order to receive the recognition you deem inappplicable?’

But seriously, it has been clear for centuries that the concept of the Lord meaning anything in Mt. 16:18-19 other than what the text says is nothing but Protestant and Orthodox massaging of the text to deny the primacy of Peter and of his successors.

I’ve made the following point several times to members of both denying groups: Everyone agrees the words are, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.” The word ‘and’ is a connecting word; in this usage it connects ‘Peter’ with ‘upon this rock I will build my church.’ Had the Lord meant what you deniers say he meant, He would have used the word ‘but.’

Not a single Protestant or Orthodox has responded, Michael. Perhaps you will be the first. Why did the Lord use ‘and’ instead of ‘but?’

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

That is inapplicable so long as the bishop of Rome is outside of the church.

How can the Bishop of Rome, acknowledged to have primacy among the Bishops of the Church, be outside of the Church?

Who declared this to be the case?

Why do these Eastern leaders seem unaware of this?

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715)

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)
St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).
St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)

Writing to Pope Leo III:
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

 

[Nine_Two]

How can the Bishop of Rome, acknowledged to have primacy among the Bishops of the Church, be outside of the Church?

Because he is in error.

Who declared this to be the case?

Every other patriarch.

Why do these Eastern leaders seem unaware of this?

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715)

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)
St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).
St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)

Writing to Pope Leo III:
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Because they all wrote when Rome was in the Church.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Because he is in error.

Every other patriarch.

Because they all wrote when Rome was in the Church.

So Rome was in the Church and the other Bishops clearly stated that Rome was the primary see of the Church.

Most Bishops are still with Rome.

Why should we believe that those Bishops who rejected Church tradition are right while the majority are wrong?

 

[Nine_Two]

So Rome was in the Church and the other Bishops clearly stated that Rome was the primary see of the Church.

Yes, it was.

Most Bishops are still with Rome.

Most Bishops now, or most bishops at the time of the split? If it is now what you’re basically saying is that if a bishop goes off on his own, and then ordains enough bishops he’ll suddenly be correct. It’s an argumentum ad populum, and does not make your case.

Why should we believe that those Bishops who rejected Church tradition are right while the majority are wrong?

This is just begging the question, and is phrased in such a way that shows you don’t want to have a real discussion about this. We Orthodox believe it was Rome that abandoned Holy Tradition.

I’ll show how this argument is going to go so we don’t have to have it:

You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
You: Orthodox abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.
Me: No, Catholics abandoned tradition and are therefore wrong.

ad infinitum.

Well, I’ve saved us some time there, although nothing has been resolved.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Well, I’ve saved us some time there, although nothing has been resolved.

You are avoiding the central point.

Who gave the rebellious bishops the right to reject the primary Bishop who was appointed by Jesus and given the keys to the Kingdom?

 

[Nine_Two]

You are avoiding the central point.

Who gave the rebellious bishops the right to reject the primary Bishop who was appointed by Jesus and given the keys to the Kingdom?

Who gave the rebellious bishops the right to claim a primacy which was never given them?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Who gave the rebellious bishops the right to claim a primacy which was never given them?

That’s my question.

Eastern Fathers had always recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Then, when it became politically difficult, they abandoned tradition and rebelled.

 

[mardukm]

I believe the past several posts have become redundant and somewhat circular.

The point of brother Nine_Two is that the bishop of Rome is in error.

The proper response is not to discuss how bishops or Patriarchs regard the orthodoxy of Rome, but rather to discuss why the orthodoxy of Rome is being questioned.

This would entail a discussion of specific doctrines on which their is disagreement - on other threads I’m sure.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

Who gave the rebellious bishops the right to claim a primacy which was never given them?

You can question the orthodoxy of Rome all you want, but can you really question that Rome had the primacy when it was (in the Orthodox view) orthodox?

And can you really question that this primacy was more than the mere honorific position that many modern Orthodox would grant (though cetainly less than what the proponents of the Absolutist Petrine view claim)?

Blessings