Orthodoxy & The Papacy

[Donald45]

I recently finished reading the following book:

Michael Whelton, Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective On Roman Catholic Claims (Conciliar Press, 2006); ISBN 1-888212-78-0

To summarize Whelton’s central arguments:

[1] THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CANONS AND CREEDS OF THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS THAT AFFIRMS PAPAL PRIMACY. There’s no solid historical evidence that the bishop of Rome ever claimed such a primacy until the middle of the 4th century A.D.

[2] THE EARLY CHURCH TAUGHT THAT THE LOCAL CHURCH WITH ITS BISHOP CONTAINS THE TOTALITY OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. The Roman Catholic concept, whereby the local church is Catholic only because it’s a segment of a larger corporate body, has no basis in the Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils.

[3] THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS HELD THAT PETER’S PRIMACY IS BEING PERPETUATED IN ALL THE CANONICAL BISHOPS OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. Their writings exclude the notion of Peter’s primacy being exercised by a single bishop to the exclusion of others. In the early centuries of Church history, Mathew 16:18 was never applied to a single bishop, since all bishops were believed to share in the Petrine powers. It was only in the 4th century that the Bishop of Rome (Damasus) attempted to apply this passage solely to his own office. From the 4th century on, the bishops of Rome (with few exceptions) strove to build on this and to other passages (Lk. 22:31-32 and Jn. 21:15-17) a code of canon law that gave them, by God’s will, a total authoritarian rule over the Church.

I’d be interested in any thoughts by both Catholic and Orthodox Christians. God bless.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Nita]

[1] THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CANONS AND CREEDS OF THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS THAT AFFIRMS PAPAL PRIMACY.

The doctrines of the Church do not come from Council canons alone. There is Scripture also — and the Scriptural writings are the earliest records of the Church. These writings certainly testify to the primacy of Peter.
If there’s nothing in the early canons and creeds regarding papal primacy, it’s probably because it wasn’t an issue – no challenge to the literal understanding of Our Lord’s words in Mt 16:18; Lk 22:32; John 21:15-17; etc. (It’s nice to compare the John 21 passage to Ezekiel’s prophecy in 34:23-24.)

[2] THE EARLY CHURCH TAUGHT THAT THE LOCAL CHURCH WITH ITS BISHOP CONTAINS THE TOTALITY OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.

I would say the Scriptures also show that the local bishop was not considered autonomous. If he were, Paul would have decided the issue concerning Mosaic circumcision on his own; there would have been no need to go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders. (Acts 15; cf Gal 2:2) The passage shows it is Peter who makes the decision in council (Acts 15:7-11).

[3] THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS HELD THAT PETER’S PRIMACY IS BEING PERPETUATED IN ALL THE CANONICAL BISHOPS OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.

Do they give some direct quotes? If so, is the ECF expressing his opinion or does he contend that it is official doctrine.
It’s great having the ECF writings, but the ECFs don’t/didn’t determine Church doctrine.

On all three points I would ask for a reference to the writings of the council that declares those positions to be the official doctrine of the Church.
Eg. what councils decided and recorded in their canons:
**there is no such thing as papal primacy
**that the local church with its bishop…
**that Peter’s primacy is being perpetuated…
How can these council documents be accessed for reference?

They seem to be basing their claims solely on silence (in early post Scriptural writings) – and have no official tangible documentation upholding their position/teaching. Which is kind of ironic since it’s the lack of tangible documentation that forms the base of their argument against Catholic teaching!!

Just my :twocents:

Nita

 

[catholic1seeks]

I recently finished reading the following book:

Michael Whelton, Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective On Roman Catholic Claims (Conciliar Press, 2006); ISBN 1-888212-78-0

To summarize Whelton’s central arguments:

[1] THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CANONS AND CREEDS OF THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS THAT AFFIRMS PAPAL PRIMACY. There’s no solid historical evidence that the bishop of Rome ever claimed such a primacy until the middle of the 4th century A.D.

Well I’m not sure about that, but here are some notable words from a favorite Church father:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well I’m not sure about that, but here are some notable words from a favorite Church father:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The doctrines of the Church do not come from Council canons alone. There is Scripture also — and the Scriptural writings are the earliest records of the Church. These writings certainly testify to the primacy of Peter.
If there’s nothing in the early canons and creeds regarding papal primacy, it’s probably because it wasn’t an issue – no challenge to the literal understanding of Our Lord’s words in Mt 16:18; Lk 22:32; John 21:15-17; etc. (It’s nice to compare the John 21 passage to Ezekiel’s prophecy in 34:23-24.)

We don’t get a Pope of Rome making any claim to supremacy until Pope Victor, and he got reprimanded the whole Church, including by St. Iranaeus.

If the Protestants were right on sola scriptura, this would be enough. The question, however is how the Fathers understood these words. The Eliakim “proof text” quite popular now, is an elegant use of Scripture, and if you believe in sola scriptura, that would be it. The problem is that no Father or anyone seems to have seen it before the previous century.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=263227

I would say the Scriptures also show that the local bishop was not considered autonomous. If he were, Paul would have decided the issue concerning Mosaic circumcision on his own; there would have been no need to go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders. (Acts 15; cf Gal 2:2) The passage shows it is Peter who makes the decision in council (Acts 15:7-11).

No, the passage shows St. James makes the decision. And Galatians shows St. Peter was in Antioch, and had to go up to Jerusalem for the decision.

Do they give some direct quotes? If so, is the ECF expressing his opinion or does he contend that it is official doctrine.
It’s great having the ECF writings, but the ECFs don’t/didn’t determine Church doctrine.

This is true, but I’ll remind you of that.

On all three points I would ask for a reference to the writings of the council that declares those positions to be the official doctrine of the Church.
Eg. what councils decided and recorded in their canons:
**there is no such thing as papal primacy

say papal supremacy, since that is what we object to.

To that, for instance, the Fifth Ecumenical Council was held over Pope Vigilius’ objection, and his name was struck from the diptychs.

**that the local church with its bishop…

Several canons of the Ecumenical Councils emphasizing the autonomy of bishops,etc.

**that Peter’s primacy is being perpetuated…

I’m more familiar with Patristics of this, I’d have to look it up for the corpus of the Ecumenical Councils.

How can these council documents be accessed for reference?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.html

They seem to be basing their claims solely on silence (in early post Scriptural writings) – and have no official tangible documentation upholding their position/teaching.
Actually, we have plenty.

Which is kind of ironic since it’s the lack of tangible documentation that forms the base of their argument against Catholic teaching!!

Quite the opposite.

 

[catholic1seeks]

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180)

My point exactly

 

[catholic1seeks]

my point exactly

exactly how do these words express the Orthodox view?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

exactly how do these words express the Orthodox view?

Same words. I just highlighted some that the Vatican likes to forget are there, i.e. the context, and you put in domineering print what the Vatican would like to pretend are the only ones there.

 

[Nita]

We don’t get a Pope of Rome making any claim to supremacy until Pope Victor, and he got reprimanded the whole Church, including by St. Iranaeus.

Documentation Isa. What writing of Iranaeus? (If Adverse Heresies, a little help in locating where in that writing. )
I’m not sure what you mean by the “whole Church”. Do you mean an ecumenical council that included a reprimand of the Pope in its documents? If so, reference please, so we can check your assertions.

If the Protestants were right on sola scriptura, this would be enough. The question, however is how the Fathers understood these words. The Eliakim “proof text” quite popular now, is an elegant use of Scripture, and if you believe in sola scriptura, that would be it. The problem is that no Father or anyone seems to have seen it before the previous century.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=263227

??? I’m not sure what this has to do with the OP, but you and I have been thru the Isaiah passage before.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127852
You do have a thing about Isaiah 22. You seem to imply it would absolutely be the key (,
pun intended) passage to prove papal supremacy, *if only *the ECFs had written something in their works about it being a type (typology) of the papacy!

No, the passage shows St. James makes the decision. .

No. Peter made the decision (vs 7-11, verses 10 & 11 specifically). After that (vs 14-21) James speaks.

And Galatians shows St. Peter was in Antioch, and had to go up to Jerusalem for the decision

Not that it has any bearing on anything, but where does it say that Peter was in Antioch and had to travel to Jerusalem for the council?

say papal supremacy, since that is what we object to.

Does this mean that you do not object to the expression “papal primacy”? If that is the case, would you explain the difference in meaning between the two?

Several canons of the Ecumenical Councils emphasizing the autonomy of bishops,etc.

Again, some references please.
Autonomy in what areas? Surely not autonomy to determine doctrine. If that were the case there could be no such thing as an heretic bishop.

(I’m aware there are areas of autonomy - but not in the areas of faith and morals where infallibility is concerned.)

I’m more familiar with Patristics of this, I’d have to look it up for the corpus of the Ecumenical Councils.

Will be interested to read the council document references when/if you find them. Meantime, could you reference some patristic writings that put forth the teaching that the primacy of Peter resides in all the canonical bishops (as opposed to his successor).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.html

??? These links were not very helpful. I have the whole set of Schaff’s ECF volumes. What’s needed is to know which author, which work, and where in that work.

Actually, we have plenty.

Then why don’t you quote and reference some of them?

Nita

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Nita,

No. Peter made the decision (vs 7-11, verses 10 & 11 specifically). After that (vs 14-21) James speaks.

Actually, it was St. James who made the decision because he was the head of the Jerusalem Church.

It is true that St. James made his decision based on St. Peter’s own authoritative teaching and Scripture, but James HAD to make the decision because the Council was dealing with a problem that came directly from his own particular Church.

As Catholics, our apologetics need to be fair, balanced and truthful. That St. James made the final judgment for his particular Church does not in any way demean St. Peter or the papacy (after all, St. James obviously deferred to St. Peter’s authoritative teaching on the matter!). But we should be honest that Scripture records that St. James made the final decision. The Truth only helps Catholicism.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

We don’t get a Pope of Rome making any claim to supremacy until Pope Victor, and he got reprimanded the whole Church, including by St. Iranaeus.

Actually, Pope St. Victor was not reprimanded for claiming supremacy, but for breaking communion over a disciplinary matter. History will be clearer when you stop injecting your own interpretations into it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

Same words. I just highlighted some that the Vatican likes to forget are there, i.e. the context, and you put in domineering print what the Vatican would like to pretend are the only ones there.

Thanks for reminding us that St. Irenaeus asserted that Rome had pre-eminent AUTHORITY, not mere pre-eminent honor.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[prodromos]

Dear brother Isa,

Thanks for reminding us that St. Irenaeus asserted that Rome had pre-eminent AUTHORITY, not mere pre-eminent honor.

Irenaeus explained where that authority comes from immediately following:that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

John

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John,

Irenaeus explained where that authority comes from immediately following:that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Sorry, but your interpretation doesn’t make any sense. I don’t know how you can equate a non-tactile quantity (authority) with a tactile quantity (the faithful everywhere). And I don’t know what justifies your imposition of “where that authority comes from” into the text.

It seems to me that the rest of the text is referring back to “the Churches.” Basically, it’s saying that only the faithful everywhere (i.e., the Churches everywhere) who adhere to the apostolic tradition will feel the necessity of agreeing with the Church of Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

It seems to me that the rest of the text is referring back to “the Churches.” Basically, it’s saying that only the faithful everywhere (i.e., the Churches everywhere) who adhere to the apostolic tradition will feel the necessity of agreeing with the Church of Rome.

Irenaeus’ discussions on Rome are due to Rome’s great fame, antiquity and apostolic foundation. St Irenaeus says likewise of every Church which holds to the true apostolic Traditions. He says rightly that all must agree with the teachings of the Church at Rome, as we must agree with any Church which adheres to the true teachings of the apostolic faith.

 

[Deconi]

Dear sister Nita,

Actually, it was St. James who made the decision because he was the head of the Jerusalem Church.

It is true that St. James made his decision based on St. Peter’s own authoritative teaching and Scripture, but James HAD to make the decision because the Council was dealing with a problem that came directly from his own particular Church.

As Catholics, our apologetics need to be fair, balanced and truthful. That St. James made the final judgment for his particular Church does not in any way demean St. Peter or the papacy (after all, St. James obviously deferred to St. Peter’s authoritative teaching on the matter!). But we should be honest that Scripture records that St. James made the final decision. The Truth only helps Catholicism.

Blessings,
Marduk

Actually, St.Peter MADE the decision; NOT James!

There’s a slight defect in your view, Marduk. Re read that passages, slowly, if you must!

St James, was indeed the Bishop of Jerusalem, and we would like to think, the head of that Council. Yet, as demonstrative of Papal AUTHORITY, even he, defferred to St. Peter’s DECISION.

Let us not forget for a moment WHAT that decision entailed. Circumsicion! Decreed by God of ALL WHO WISH TO FOLLOW HIM! We are not talking about some small insignificant subject, but a symbol, signature, of a Divine covenant! The text only mentions “much ado” about the discussions that raged about the subject, but we can imagine how heated and emotive it must have been!

Now, for a man, a creature, to declare that it was no longer necessary, has be viewed, even from here, as BLASPHEMOUS!!

Yet when Peter spoke, all fell silent is what the text tell us.

Not James; PETER! Now, however long that ‘silence’ was, the text does not dwell on. But St James, as the Bishop, speaks in agreement with St Peter. Now we can build arguments that James was of the same mind as Peter anyway, and was simply in agreement, or that he conceded whatever view he held in favour of Peter’s, but the point remains that Peter made the decision.

From Rome’s viewpoint, it is Papal Authority manifest. Dissenters can argue all they like, but both the text and Tradition are clear!

As Catholics we do not hold this up as some sort of powerplay but simply as evidence of the truth we follow. As Catholics, our HUMILITY is found in St. James who inspite being the Bishop, submitted to the authority placed upon his brethren by their Master.

 

[Mickey]

Actually, St.Peter MADE the decision; NOT James!

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Irenaeus’ discussions on Rome are due to Rome’s great fame, antiquity and apostolic foundation. St Irenaeus says likewise of every Church which holds to the true apostolic Traditions. He says rightly that all must agree with the teachings of the Church at Rome, as we must agree with any Church which adheres to the true teachings of the apostolic faith.

I agree with you that any particular Church that adheres to the true teachings of the apostolic faith is an authority that needs to be obeyed. But nevertheless, we must take heed of the fact that he asserts that all must agree with Rome BECAUSE of its PRE-EMINENT AUTHORITY.

I agree with your criteria of antiquity and apostolic foundation, but the “fame” part is suspect. If you mean “fame” as in it was famous among Christians for its apostolic foundation, then I can agree. But if you mean “fame” as in it was popular in a secular sense as the capital of the empire (which is the usual EO rhetoric), then I wholeheartedly disagree.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Deconi,

Actually, St.Peter MADE the decision; NOT James!

There’s a slight defect in your view, Marduk. Re read that passages, slowly, if you must!

St James, was indeed the Bishop of Jerusalem, and we would like to think, the head of that Council. Yet, as demonstrative of Papal AUTHORITY, even he, defferred to St. Peter’s DECISION.

Let us not forget for a moment WHAT that decision entailed. Circumsicion! Decreed by God of ALL WHO WISH TO FOLLOW HIM! We are not talking about some small insignificant subject, but a symbol, signature, of a Divine covenant! The text only mentions “much ado” about the discussions that raged about the subject, but we can imagine how heated and emotive it must have been!

Now, for a man, a creature, to declare that it was no longer necessary, has be viewed, even from here, as BLASPHEMOUS!!

Yet when Peter spoke, all fell silent is what the text tell us.

Not James; PETER! Now, however long that ‘silence’ was, the text does not dwell on. But St James, as the Bishop, speaks in agreement with St Peter. Now we can build arguments that James was of the same mind as Peter anyway, and was simply in agreement, or that he conceded whatever view he held in favour of Peter’s, but the point remains that Peter made the decision.

From Rome’s viewpoint, it is Papal Authority manifest. Dissenters can argue all they like, but both the text and Tradition are clear!

As Catholics we do not hold this up as some sort of powerplay but simply as evidence of the truth we follow. As Catholics, our HUMILITY is found in St. James who inspite being the Bishop, submitted to the authority placed upon his brethren by their Master.

I respectfully disagree. St. James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church. It was incumbent upon him and him alone to make the final decision on a matter which involved members of his Church (who were making trouble for Paul and Barnabas in Antioch). Read the text again, and you will see that there is a discernable difference between St. Peter’s authoritative teaching and the judgment of St. James. St. James’ judgment covered other points that St. Peter had not addressed. St. James’ judgment was unique and his own, and it was made for his Church over whom he was the head.

I agree with you that Papal authority is manifest in the Acts 15 text, but Patriarchal authority is also manifest therein as represented by St. James.

You make it seem like other bishops and Patriarchs (head bishops) are mere “yes-men” of the Pope. That position I adamantly reject.

Blessings,
Marduk