Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[mardukm]

For example the power to bind and lose ALONG WITH THE KEYS were given to Peter at one time - and there were not 11 other sets of Keys (you seem to have missed this point while trying to burry it under what the other Apostles received).

Now stick with me on this … we see Paul consecrating Timothy and Titus as Bishops - and these new Bishops had the same power and authority as the Apostles (the First Bishops) While not written in Scripture, I think we can see that the other Apostles consecrated other men to the position of Bishop and this was no mere title, but a position with Divine blessings. I really do not think you have a problem with that … do you?

Chist put Peter in charge of the Apostels and gave him alone the Keys as a sign of this authority. If continuing the position of Bishop is a natual (actually, supernatural) extension as we trace from the Apostles to our own Bishops - why do you think it so strange that the position of leader (Pope) would not be passed on, too?

When I was not communion with Rome, I could never answer this question. But it never bothered me … until I studied the Fathers (needless to say, the exaggerations and excesses of the Absolutist Petrine view really do a lot of damage to the unity of the Church on this matter).

For me personally, in hindsight, it was not a matter of pride that I resisted the Truth of the matter, but simply a rock-solid a priori belief that it simply could not be true(translated into Catholic jargon, that would be known as “invincible ignorance,” and only the working of the Holy Spirit can overcome that).

But there are many Orthodox who accept the principle behind your logic, believe it or not. These Orthodox hold to a High Petrine view of the Church, just like many Catholics. The issue with High Petrine advocates in the Orthodox Churches is not ecclesiology, but doctrine - these Orthodox currently view Catholicism to be heterodox or heretical, and they cannot honor or obey such a bishop as head bishop (which is understandable, IMO). I honestly believe this lack of consensus is based on misunderstanding, instead of an objective difference between the Faith of Catholicism and the Faith of Orthodoxy. So I am very much an optimist on the issue of unity.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

There was a long discussion of the Acts 15 council already to which I have nothing to add. I’m familiar with the scriptural arguments for the papacy, which I find unconvincing, but I’m open to arguments from history and the writings of the fathers. The problem with the scriptural arguments is that they establish St. Peter as the head of the apostles, but not his supremecy over them. Further, even if supremecy were demonstrated, it would have to be shown that his personal perrogatives passed to the Bishop of Rome, which cannot be demonstrated from scripture. The argument therefore becomes one of tradition, wherein I am looking for answers.

St. Peter’s primacy/supremacy (from the collegial outlook of Orientals, those two words are basically the same) was passed down through the principle of Apostolic Succession. I believe the onus is on Orthodox not in communion with Rome to demonstrate why a charism or responsibility that existed among the Apostles could not be passed down in the Apostolic Succession.

An oft-neglected Scriptural passage in direct support of the office of primacy/supremacy in the Church is Matthew 24:45-51, about the servant whom the Master will set over the household when the Master leaves. St. John Chrysostom (for one) explicitly applied these passages to St. Peter and his successors in the bishops of Rome. This is especially relevant, as St. Chrysostom was from the Church of Antioch.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

What see in the world today does everybody accept as the see of Peter? Please show your work.

Given your Absolutist Petrine view of ecclesiology, I must question what you mean by “See of Peter.”

According to Pope St. Gregory the Great, the See of Peter consisted of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, with the See of Rome having the primacy/supremacy.

This contradicts the Absolutist Petrine claims that the bishop of Rome - when exercising the Petrine headship - can act unilaterally, apart from his brother bishops or the rest of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Permit me to attempt to answer your post concisely:

So could Pope Benedict XVI make a declaration tomorrow that Pope Honorius is no longer amathematized, or that Theodoret’s writings are actually just a different way of expressing the orthodox faith?

Yes, he could. But there are two different, even opposing, views on how this can come about in the Catholic Church:
The High Petrine view:
If a Pope does this, he will not do it on his own initiative, but at the request of his brother bishops. And if a Pope does this, he will be sure - he will be required - to sound the mind of the Church first before making any dogmatic statement on the matter. The latter explanation is the process as detailed by Pastor Aeternus and the Official Relatio of Vatican 1.

The Absolutist Petrine view:
The Pope can do this unilaterally, without the (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops or the Church. This view has no support from Sacred Tradition or any Catholic Magisterial Church documents.

If he could not, why is that?

He can, so the question is moot. The question, rather, is whether the action will be collegial (the High Petrine view) or unilateral (the Absolutist Petrine view).

Is there a time limit on how long a pope has to reject the decision of a synod? Or must the rejection perhaps be immediate?

On a matter of doctrine, the Pope must respond immediately. On other matters, there is no time limit, as the overriding principle will be the needs of the Church. That’s called oikonomia, a principle with which I’m sure you are familiar.

What happens if a pope accepts a council, but his successor does not?

It’s never happened on doctrinal matters, so the question is moot. On non-doctrinal matters, a Pope of Rome’s decision, if different from his predecessor’s, will have effect on a patriarchal level.

And why does Rome even deign to hold dialogue with the Ecumenical Patriarch who is nothing but a usurper according to St. Leo’s rejection of canon 28, unless Rome recognizes the fact that Leo’s rejection of canon 28 was overturned de facto by the rest of the Church, which gave Constantinople its second seat of honor and recognized its jurisdiction as described in canon 28 of Chalcedon?

Pope Leo’s decision was not overturned by “the rest of the Church.” Rather, Pope Leo’s decision was validated by the Synod of Trullo. The rejection of Chalcedon’s Canon 28 (Constantinople’s Canon 3, IIRC) was based on the claim that the rank of Constantinople was based on secular/geo-political factors (i.e., it was the new capital). In contradiction to this novel principle, Sacred Tradition, carried on by Pope St. Leo, asserted that the ranking of the Sees was based on apostolicity. The respective Canons of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon on the ranking of Constantinople explicitly claimed that Constantinople was second after Rome because it was the new Capital of the empire. This, Rome rejected, and has always rejected, to this very day. Eventually, the Easterns came around, and in the 7th century, we see evidence that Constantinople began claiming to be second, not because it was capital of the empire, but because of its apostolicity from St. Andrew. By the time of the Synod of Trullo, the claim of being second after Old Rome by virtue of being “capital of the empire” (i.e. “New Rome”) had disappeared from the text of the original Canon. Thus, it paved the way for Rome (in what Latins accept as the 8th Ecumenical Council in 9th century) to accept the second ranking of Constantinople.

NOTE1: Because EO do not accept the so-called “8th ecumenical Council,” most EO are unaware that Rome accepted Constantinople’s second ranking at that Council. Every EO apologist I’ve encountered on the matter mistakenly claim that the first time Rome accepted the second ranking of Constantinople was during the Crusades.

NOTE2: The claim that the order of the Sees was based on geo-political factors (instead of apostolicity) is being revived be modern EO polemicists and apologists, but it has no patristic merit. The East already repudiated that assumption in the latter part of the first millenium. It was a novelty when it was first introduced by the then-local Synod of Constantinople in 381, and it is till a novelty today.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Chist put Peter in charge of the Apostels

No.

 

[Mickey]

The High Petrine view:
The Absolutist Petrine view:

I am curious as to whether you have received a nihil obstat imprimatur for your “petrine views” theology.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Permit me to attempt to answer your post concisely:

Yes, he could. But there are two different, even opposing, views on how this can come about in the Catholic Church:
The High Petrine view:
If a Pope does this, he will not do it on his own initiative, but at the request of his brother bishops. And if a Pope does this, he will be sure - he will be required - to sound the mind of the Church first before making any dogmatic statement on the matter. The latter explanation is the process as detailed by Pastor Aeternus and the Official Relatio of Vatican 1.

The Absolutist Petrine view:
The Pope can do this unilaterally, without the (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops or the Church. This view has no support from Sacred Tradition or any Catholic Magisterial Church documents.

He can, so the question is moot. The question, rather, is whether the action will be collegial (the High Petrine view) or unilateral (the Absolutist Petrine view).

On a matter of doctrine, the Pope must respond immediately. On other matters, there is no time limit, as the overriding principle will be the needs of the Church. That’s called oikonomia, a principle with which I’m sure you are familiar.

It’s never happened on doctrinal matters, so the question is moot. On non-doctrinal matters, a Pope of Rome’s decision, if different from his predecessor’s, will have effect on a patriarchal level.

Pope Leo’s decision was not overturned by “the rest of the Church.” Rather, Pope Leo’s decision was validated by the Synod of Trullo. The rejection of Chalcedon’s Canon 28 (Constantinople’s Canon 3, IIRC) was based on the claim that the rank of Constantinople was based on secular/geo-political factors (i.e., it was the new capital). In contradiction to this novel principle, Sacred Tradition, carried on by Pope St. Leo, asserted that the ranking of the Sees was based on apostolicity. The respective Canons of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon on the ranking of Constantinople explicitly claimed that Constantinople was second after Rome because it was the new Capital of the empire. This, Rome rejected, and has always rejected, to this very day. Eventually, the Easterns came around, and in the 7th century, we see evidence that Constantinople began claiming to be second, not because it was capital of the empire, but because of its apostolicity from St. Andrew. By the time of the Synod of Trullo, the claim of being second after Old Rome by virtue of being “capital of the empire” (i.e. “New Rome”) had disappeared from the text of the original Canon. Thus, it paved the way for Rome (in what Latins accept as the 8th Ecumenical Council in 9th century) to accept the second ranking of Constantinople.

Pope Leo’s rejection was essentially ignored in the East, hence what I said about his rejection of canon 28 being overturned or ignored de facto (as opposed to de jure).

NOTE1: Because EO do not accept the so-called “8th ecumenical Council,” most EO are unaware that Rome accepted Constantinople’s second ranking at that Council. Every EO apologist I’ve encountered on the matter mistakenly claim that the first time Rome accepted the second ranking of Constantinople was during the Crusades.

I disagree, most Eastern Orthodox who know anything about the so-called Photian schism know that the council of 869-70 was abrogated by the council of 879-80, therefore its canons and declarations are null. The evidence for this is that even by the time of Florence, no Greek version of the council of 869-70 had survived, because it was considered to have been abrogated by the later council. It was only in the Latin West, during the investiture controversy that the council of 869-70 acquired ‘ecumenical status,’ because it contained a canon which set a precedent for keeping secular rulers from interfering with the appointment of bishops, hence the longstanding slander which survives to this day against St. Photius that he was a usurper and schismatic when in reality he died at peace and in good standing with the Church.

NOTE2: The claim that the order of the Sees was based on geo-political factors (instead of apostolicity) is being revived be modern EO polemicists and apologists, but it has no patristic merit. The East already repudiated that assumption in the latter part of the first millenium. It was a novelty when it was first introduced by the then-local Synod of Constantinople in 381, and it is till a novelty today.

Where may I find canons and writings of the Church Fathers addressing apostolicity? Where are all of the sees evangelized by St. Philip or St. Thomas, and why do they not have an according place of honor (also, why does Ephesus not have a place of honor, being a community associated with Ss. Paul and John, as well as the most holy Theotokos)? Why also does the Roman Church accept the myth of Constantinople’s apostolic founding by St. Andrew, when we know that such a story is simply an impossibility? This concept of apostolicity is problematic.

Furthermore, since Alexandria’s claim to Peter lies with Mark, it is clear that one does not need to be able to trace the see’s founding to a particular apostle, but rather its line of teaching (and presumably ordination) to a particular apostle. If that is true, then what is the cut-off generation, when apostolicity fades from those establishing new sees? Is there some sort of half-life of apostolicity? This just doesn’t seem like a well thought out concept.

 

[steve_b]

Are you looking for polling data?

What see in the world, from the earliest date, till today, has consistently been considered the see of Peter. And show your work i.e. list what evidence you’ve found.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Pope Leo’s rejection was essentially ignored in the East, hence what I said about his rejection of canon 28 being overturned or ignored de facto (as opposed to de jure).

And the Westerns and Orientals rejected Canon 28 . So the will of the Easterns regrading Canon 28 was overturned and ignored de facto and de jure by the rest of the Church.

TBH, I was just mimicking your language, but don’ agree with it at all. As a High Petrine advocate, I see the situation simply as the CHURCH not agreeing on the issue of Canon 28 - therefore it did not have ecumenical status. Your language seems to view ecclesiology in terms of the opposition of the head and the body (& vice versa) - a popular tactic by the Absolutist and Low Petrine camps. Both, despite their inherent ideological incompatibility, share a common, unpatristic mindset — they consistently view the relationship between the head and the body as one of subordination - either the head subordinating the body, or the body subordinating the head. Both camps seem utterly incapable of viewing matters in the collegial context of the Church as a whole.

I disagree, most Eastern Orthodox who know anything about the so-called Photian schism know that the council of 869-70 was abrogated by the council of 879-80, therefore its canons and declarations are null. The evidence for this is that…

You miss the point. It’s not about whether the Council of 869-70 was ecumenical. My point was that it is simply false for EO to claim that Rome accepted the status of Constantinople as second after Rome only during the Crusades. It is fine to disagree with opinions, but what I stated was a fact, not an opinion.

Where may I find canons and writings of the Church Fathers addressing apostolicity?

You can start with St. Irenaeus (where he speaks of the preeminent apostolic lineage of Rome). Then you can move on to Eusebius, who makes it a point to trace the apostolic pedigree of several Churches. Then consider the numerous places where the early Fathers call the Church of Rome, or the Church of Antioch, or the Church of Alexandria “Apostolic Sees” - a title that is not used with other Sees (there might be references to Jerusalem being an “Apostolic See,” but I don’t recall off hand).

Where are all of the sees evangelized by St. Philip or St. Thomas, and why do they not have an according place of honor (also, why does Ephesus not have a place of honor, being a community associated with Ss. Paul and John, as well as the most holy Theotokos)?

These places were accorded honor, but for some reason, they were not accorded Patriarchal status by the Church. The First, great Ecumenical Council of Nicea recognized only three Patriarchal Sees - Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Why? Certainly, Ephesus and Athens, for instance, were metropolitan centers of culture, learning and social activity, and had apostolic roots, as well. Why were they not granted Patriarchal status by the early Church? Think about it a bit more.

On my part, it is because of the explicit Petrine lineage of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch that was the patristic rationale for their primordial Patriarchal status (explicitly affirmed by Pope St. Gregory the Great). The Patriarchal status of Jerusalem, as can be seen from the writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the discussions at Chalcedon, was explicitly a mere concession based on its historic religious roots. Canon 6 of Constantinople was a truly novel concept, intruded into the mind of the Church by the secular state (I agree somewhat with brother Ghosty’s earlier statement - the Church of Constantinople did not intrude itself, but it was the machinations of the secular power that did so).

Why also does the Roman Church accept the myth of Constantinople’s apostolic founding by St. Andrew, when we know that such a story is simply an impossibility? This concept of apostolicity is problematic.

TBH, you are only the second EO I’ve ever met who denies the apostolic foundation of Constantinople. The MP makes an indirect claim to that apostolicity through St. Andrew as well. I suspect your opinion, if it gains ground, simply reflects the shifting sands on which modern EO claims against Catholicism are based. As mentioned earlier, modern EO polemicists and apologists seem to be reviving the novelty that Patriarchal status depends on socio-political factors. I guess it is part of the current rhetoric to deny even the apostolicity of their own major patriarchal sees in order to deny Catholic truths.

Furthermore, since Alexandria’s claim to Peter lies with Mark, it is clear that one does not need to be able to trace the see’s founding to a particular apostle, but rather its line of teaching (and presumably ordination) to a particular apostle.

A self-refuting statement.

If that is true, then what is the cut-off generation, when apostolicity fades from those establishing new sees? Is there some sort of half-life of apostolicity? This just doesn’t seem like a well thought out concept.

I don’t understand what you mean by “cut-off generation” or “half-life.” I underlined the answer to your question - the laying on of hands traced back to an Apostle. The Truth of the Catholic position is already part of your knowledge. You just have to think about it some more, or perhaps overcome some a priori prejudices against the Catholic Church, in order to accept the truth of it all.

Blessings

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

And the Westerns and Orientals rejected Canon 28 . So the will of the Easterns regrading Canon 28 was overturned and ignored de facto and de jure by the rest of the Church.

The Orientals (by which I assume you mean the miaphysites, not the Roman geographical region) rejected all of Chalcedon, which is hardly helpful in determining the status of canon 28. Better yet would be to look at the churches which were directly affected by canon 28. Antioch lost a bit of territory, if I recall, and several provinces like Asia came under the control of Constantinople. Because of this recognized position of authority, canon 28 was in fact accepted de facto by all parties directly involved.

TBH, I was just mimicking your language, but don’ agree with it at all. As a High Petrine advocate, I see the situation simply as the CHURCH not agreeing on the issue of Canon 28 - therefore it did not have ecumenical status. Your language seems to view ecclesiology in terms of the opposition of the head and the body (& vice versa) - a popular tactic by the Absolutist and Low Petrine camps. Both, despite their inherent ideological incompatibility, share a common, unpatristic mindset — they consistently view the relationship between the head and the body as one of subordination - either the head subordinating the body, or the body subordinating the head. Both camps seem utterly incapable of viewing matters in the collegial context of the Church as a whole.

Where is this concept found? The only analogue I can see between what you are saying and the Church is the relationship between a metropolitan and his synod, and yet even that relationship clearly places more power in the body (as the body can and has in the past replaced its head).

You miss the point. It’s not about whether the Council of 869-70 was ecumenical. My point was that it is simply false for EO to claim that Rome accepted the status of Constantinople as second after Rome only during the Crusades. It is fine to disagree with opinions, but what I stated was a fact, not an opinion.

If the council of 869-70 was abrogated and made null by the council of 879-80, then that really matters not, but either way, we can agree that Rome eventually recognized the patriarchate of Constantinople.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You can start with St. Irenaeus (where he speaks of the preeminent apostolic lineage of Rome). Then you can move on to Eusebius, who makes it a point to trace the apostolic pedigree of several Churches. Then consider the numerous places where the early Fathers call the Church of Rome, or the Church of Antioch, or the Church of Alexandria “Apostolic Sees” - a title that is not used with other Sees (there might be references to Jerusalem being an “Apostolic See,” but I don’t recall off hand).

Perhaps I should clarify: my question is where I may find a nice patristic treatise or canon which defines exactly what apostolicity is, how the apostolicity of a see might be determined and how that affects Church governance?

These places were accorded honor, but for some reason, they were not accorded Patriarchal status by the Church. The First, great Ecumenical Council of Nicea recognized only three Patriarchal Sees - Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Why? Certainly, Ephesus and Athens, for instance, were metropolitan centers of culture, learning and social activity, and had apostolic roots, as well. Why were they not granted Patriarchal status by the early Church? Think about it a bit more.

On my part, it is because of the explicit Petrine lineage of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch that was the patristic rationale for their primordial Patriarchal status (explicitly affirmed by Pope St. Gregory the Great). The Patriarchal status of Jerusalem, as can be seen from the writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the discussions at Chalcedon, was explicitly a mere concession based on its historic religious roots. Canon 6 of Constantinople was a truly novel concept, intruded into the mind of the Church by the secular state (I agree somewhat with brother Ghosty’s earlier statement - the Church of Constantinople did not intrude itself, but it was the machinations of the secular power that did so).

So why Alexandria? Surely Peter had other disciples in his lineage of ordination who founded other sees. Why does only Alexandria, not founded by Peter but by Mark, get to share in Peter’s see, when there are theoretically plenty of churches out there which are just as ‘Petrine’ as Alexandria. Why too does Alexandria rank above Antioch in honor, since Alexandria’s claim to Peter is weaker than Antioch’s?

 

[Cavaradossi]

TBH, you are only the second EO I’ve ever met who denies the apostolic foundation of Constantinople. The MP makes an indirect claim to that apostolicity through St. Andrew as well. I suspect your opinion, if it gains ground, simply reflects the shifting sands on which modern EO claims against Catholicism are based. As mentioned earlier, modern EO polemicists and apologists seem to be reviving the novelty that Patriarchal status depends on socio-political factors. I guess it is part of the current rhetoric to deny even the apostolicity of their own major patriarchal sees in order to deny Catholic truths.

No serious historian accepts the idea that Constantinople can trace its lineage back to Andrew. We are sure the church in the area around Constantinople must have been founded early on, but to say that it was definitely St. Andrew or one of his disciples is just bad history. If I am not mistaken Francis Dvornik, a slavic historian, church historian and Roman Catholic priest does not take the claims of Constantinople’s Apostolic founding too seriously (and in the interest of fairness, if I am to use his views on the history behind the Photian councils, I should mention his view on the St. Andrew connection, namely that it is pious nonsense).

A self-refuting statement.

No, it is not. Alexandria was not founded by Peter, so its claim to Peter comes therefore from the fact that Mark was a disciple of Peter. Therefore if we are to say that Alexandria is ‘petrine’ we would have to conclude that this peculiar form of Apostolicity must not depend on the particular apostle Peter himself founding the see— one of his disciples will do just as well.

I don’t understand what you mean by “cut-off generation” or “half-life.” I underlined the answer to your question - the laying on of hands traced back to an Apostle. The Truth of the Catholic position is already part of your knowledge. You just have to think about it some more, or perhaps overcome some a priori prejudices against the Catholic Church, in order to accept the truth of it all.

Blessings

Refer back to the argument I made in thee previous paragraph. We have determined that being founded by Peter is not a requirement for a see to be ‘petrine.’ Given that Alexandria provides a precedent for the fact that a disciple can pass on Peter’s apostolicity, why are there not more ‘petrine’ sees? Why is Ethiopia, for example not one when it has Alexandria as its mother church. Taken further, why is not every single see founded by Rome, Antioch or Alexandra Apostolic? Is there some sort of half-life, such that subsequent generations become less and less effective at passing on Apostolicity? Or was that faculty only a charism available to the first generation of Christians perhaps?

Furthermore, how does Apostolicity pass from generation to generation? Is it through ordination? How could that be possible, since bishops do not always ordain their successors? If it is not ordination, then is it some special charism attached to the physical location? That is very troublesome since such a mechanism (unlike ordination) has not been mentioned in the bible, nor is it mentioned by the fathers. If neither of these is true, then what is the mechanism for the passing of Apostolicity from generation to generation? This is not an a priori prejudice here, this is inquiry into the implications of a concept to see if it can hold up to logical scrutiny, or if it is best left as a pious recognition of the honor due to certain sees as ancient centers of Christianity.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

If the council of 869-70 was abrogated and made null by the council of 879-80, then that really matters not, but either way, we can agree that Rome eventually recognized the patriarchate of Constantinople.

Brother Cavaradossi, shifting gears for a monent, I asked you a couple of questions a few days ago and you haven’t responded. Perhaps you missed them. They are at the bottom of message #360 on page 24 of this thread. Thanks.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Furthermore, how does Apostolicity pass from generation to generation? Is it through ordination? How could that be possible, since bishops do not always ordain their successors?

‘Apostolicity’ is not apolostolic succession. The authority of the Apostles is passed to succeeding generations, but not their persons. Bishops are not Apostles. The authority of a particular bishop resides in his Chair, not his person, so it doesn’t really matter who ordains him.

 

[karaleigh]

One thing that Catholics should keep in mind when discussing Peter and the papacy with Eastern Orthodox is that we accept that Peter was the “corypheus” or “choir leader” of the apostles, which is to say he was the head or chief apostle. What we disagree with is the idea that he exercised authority over them, or that his personal prerogatives passed to the bishop of Rome.

I understand St. Peter to be the beginning to the understanding of the 12 apostles missions. It is the entire sequence of Peter’s given position in the gospels and letters that is the directive of what to look for to understand the missionary journeys of the 12 disciples, and its futuristic benefits for us during this time of creation.

 

[mardukm]

As I stated several months ago, I knew you were one EO with whom I would enjoy intelligent conversation!

The Orientals (by which I assume you mean the miaphysites, not the Roman geographical region) rejected all of Chalcedon, which is hardly helpful in determining the status of canon 28.

You need to look beyond Chalcedon as far as the Orientals are concerned. Understand that the attempt to interpose Constantinople as second after Rome did not originate at Chalcedon, but at the Constantinople 381, which did not have Ecumenical status until 451-452 A.D. The Alexandrian Church never accepted this novelty, and there is ample record of the tension between Constantinople and Alexandria over the matter. In fact, the general Oriental perception is that the deposition of Pope St. Dioscorus was not primarily doctrinal, but because of ecclesio-political intrigue due to the rivalry between Constantinople and Alexandria - brought about by Constantinople’s attempt to be (ecclesiastically speaking) second after Rome.

Better yet would be to look at the churches which were directly affected by canon 28. Antioch lost a bit of territory, if I recall, and several provinces like Asia came under the control of Constantinople. Because of this recognized position of authority, canon 28 was in fact accepted de facto by all parties directly involved.

The Orientals (and the Westerns) never accepted the novelty. Naturally, those under Byzantine control would accept it, so that doesn’t really say much. I think it is really difficult to gauge what was the will of the Church, vs what was the will of the secular State during those days - would you agree?

Where is this concept found?

Apostolic Canon 34. I’m sure I don’t need to quote it for you. A local Synod of Antioch - which had ecumenical acceptance by the 4th, 6th, and 7th Councils - affirmed its principles for the local Church in the early 4th century, referring to Apostolic Canon 34 as “ancient.”

The only analogue I can see between what you are saying and the Church is the relationship between a metropolitan and his synod

Any grouping of bishops requires a head bishop. The principle of AC 34 applies on all levels of the hierarchy - metropolitan, patriarchal, universal.

and yet even that relationship clearly places more power in the body (as the body can and has in the past replaced its head).

No. The body does not have more power. The ultimate authority is Sacred Tradition. The head and body, and each member of that body, are answerable to Sacred Tradition, and it is on that standard ALONE that any member of the body is judged. It is dangerous (and unpatristic, to boot), to make it a general principle that the body is above the head, or the head above the body, for that would make persons the focal point of authority, instead of the divine rule of Sacred Tradition. Rather, the head and body are ONE formal authority, and each member of that body can be corrected according to the standard of Sacred Tradition. So the head can correct the body or members of that body, and the head himself is not above correction by the body. And whether it is the head that corrects the body, or the body that corrects the head, there are not two authorities in opposition, but only ONE authority that acts.

That would be the main difference between the High Petrine view, on the one hand, and the Absolutist and Low Petrine views, on the other. The Absolutist/ Low Petrine views understand ecclesiology in terms of competing authorities. The High Petrine view understands that there is really only one authority (a collegial authority) that is acting in the Church.

Perhaps I should clarify: my question is where I may find a nice patristic treatise or canon which defines exactly what apostolicity is, how the apostolicity of a see might be determined and how that affects Church governance?

I think we’re in the same boat. I certainly don’t know of any specific treatise on the matter. I do know that Apostolic pedigree is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY (though not exclusively necessary) for any local Church to claim valid/true orders and Sacraments.

So why Alexandria? Surely Peter had other disciples in his lineage of ordination who founded other sees. Why does only Alexandria, not founded by Peter but by Mark, get to share in Peter’s see, when there are theoretically plenty of churches out there which are just as ‘Petrine’ as Alexandria.

What other church claims to have direct apostolic pedigree from a disciple of St. Peter?

Why too does Alexandria rank above Antioch in honor, since Alexandria’s claim to Peter is weaker than Antioch’s?

I’ve found the idea that “Rome is 1st, Alexandria is 2nd, and Antioch is 3rd” to be most popular peculiarly among Eastern Byzantine Christians. As an Oriental, I never grew up with that idea. What I learned (and believe) is that Rome had the primacy, and other Patriarchal Sees were equal in rank afer that. So, tbh, I can’t answer your question, as it’s based on a premise foreign to me. I think the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. classification was an unfortunate effect of Constantinople’s novel imposition among the patriarchates. Constantinople claimed to be 2nd after Rome, but ALSO claimed to be FIRST among the Eastern sees based on socio-political factors. The novelty became standard among Easterns, but not so among Orientals. I propose that the Latin Church also possesses the primordial, apostolic concept of primacy, and I think the West only recognized Constantinople’s claim for the sake of oikonomia - i.e., for the sake of peace of the Church (though certainly, Rome could not recognize the socio-political claim, but she could at least recognize the apostolicity claim from St. Andrew).

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

No serious historian accepts the idea that Constantinople can trace its lineage back to Andrew. We are sure the church in the area around Constantinople must have been founded early on, but to say that it was definitely St. Andrew or one of his disciples is just bad history.

To repeat, I believe Rome recognized it only as a concession for the sake of oikonomia, since Constantinople was so insistent about its pretensions to power in the East. Of course, Rome could never recognize it on the mere basis of the socio-political hegemony of Constantinople.

No, it is not. Alexandria was not founded by Peter, so its claim to Peter comes therefore from the fact that Mark was a disciple of Peter. Therefore if we are to say that Alexandria is ‘petrine’ we would have to conclude that this peculiar form of Apostolicity must not depend on the particular apostle Peter himself founding the see— one of his disciples will do just as well.

No one here argued that the petrine nature of the see was due to its founding by St. Peter. Yes, the foundation by a disciple of St. Peter would seem to be enough, for the apostolic pedigree would be traced back directly to St. Peter nonetheless.

Refer back to the argument I made in thee previous paragraph. We have determined that being founded by Peter is not a requirement for a see to be ‘petrine.’ Given that Alexandria provides a precedent for the fact that a disciple can pass on Peter’s apostolicity, why are there not more ‘petrine’ sees? Why is Ethiopia, for example not one when it has Alexandria as its mother church. Taken further, why is not every single see founded by Rome, Antioch or Alexandra Apostolic? Is there some sort of half-life, such that subsequent generations become less and less effective at passing on Apostolicity? Or was that faculty only a charism available to the first generation of Christians perhaps?

Regarding Ethiopia, the Church of Ethiopia explicitly traces its foundation to St. Philip, not St. Peter or a disciple of St. Peter. It’s connection with Alexandria came later on, after its foundation, because it needed to get apostolic continuity (i.e., the laying on of hands) from Alexandria (its closest neighbor).

I still don’t understand the “half-life” comment.

Furthermore, how does Apostolicity pass from generation to generation? Is it through ordination? How could that be possible, since bishops do not always ordain their successors? If it is not ordination, then is it some special charism attached to the physical location? That is very troublesome since such a mechanism (unlike ordination) has not been mentioned in the bible, nor is it mentioned by the fathers.

Apostolicity is not the same as Apostolic Succession, as brother Ferde Rombola already noted (I’ll take the blame for not making the distinction much earlier in this thread). Apostolicity can be obtained from ANY group of bishops (or from any bishop under extenuating circumstances). Apostolic Succession, on the other hand, is directly connected to the foundation of the Church in question. For example, imagine a heretic occupying the See of Antioch (which happened several times in the history of the Church). It’s apostolicity can be renewed when orthodox bishops, even from outside the See, ordain a new Patriarch. But its apostolic succession will always be the one attached to its foundation - St. Peter. It will always be a Petrine See, holding Petrine succession, regardless of where its apostolicity is obtained. When the new Patriarch of Antioch is installed, regardless of from whom he obtains his apostolicity, he will be considered a successor of St. Peter.

As far as our discussion on Constantinople is concerned, the problem was that Constantinople claimed to be one of the Patriarchal Sees for the sheer reason that it was the new capital of the Empire. It did not use apostolicity and/or apostolic succession as the basis for its claim to being a Patriarchal See. That was a novelty in the mind of the Church, a novelty recognized by Rome and Alexandria. Antioch and most of the East was under the control of the secular Byzantine State, and it was the SECULAR STATE who had the primary interest in making Constantinople second after Rome, So I find any claim that agreement with Chalcedon’s Canon 28 to be “the mind of the Church” to be without foundation – rather, it was the mind of the secular State imposed on the Church.

Blessings

 

[dcointin]

Dear brother Don,

St. Peter’s primacy/supremacy (from the collegial outlook of Orientals, those two words are basically the same) was passed down through the principle of Apostolic Succession. I believe the onus is on Orthodox not in communion with Rome to demonstrate why a charism or responsibility that existed among the Apostles could not be passed down in the Apostolic Succession.

An oft-neglected Scriptural passage in direct support of the office of primacy/supremacy in the Church is Matthew 24:45-51, about the servant whom the Master will set over the household when the Master leaves. St. John Chrysostom (for one) explicitly applied these passages to St. Peter and his successors in the bishops of Rome. This is especially relevant, as St. Chrysostom was from the Church of Antioch.

Blessings,
Marduk

Apostolic succession is not the passing of personal perrogatives to another, but the succession of ordination from the apostles. Catholics seem to view it in terms of the passing along of power by the laying on of hands, while Orthodox wouldn’t deny that aspect but emphasize the lineage of teaching. The original purpose of arguing a church’s apostolic succession was in polemics against heretics. It is reasonable to assume that if your bishop could trace his ordination to the apostles, then the tradition which he received would be more likely to be authentically apostolic than that of someone that could not trace his succession in this way. There is no “Petrine” succession, or “Johanine” succession, etc., but only “apostolic” succession. If not, why wouldn’t we claim special perrogatives for sees founded by John, James, Andrew, etc.? In the Orthodox tradition all bishops are successors of all the apostles because they inherit the office of the episcopate in common. Further, why would the church at Rome be the successor of Peter and not Antioch, or other sees that he founded?

Can you give a link to the commentary by St. John Chrysostom that you mentioned? I’m not finding it on ccel.org

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

I always look forward to your intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut!

Apostolic succession is not the passing of personal perrogatives to another, but the succession of ordination from the apostles.

I’m not sure I understand the distinction. Ordination in fact gives bishops certain prerogatives. I don’t see how one can separate the two concepts.

Catholics seem to view it in terms of the passing along of power by the laying on of hands, while Orthodox wouldn’t deny that aspect but emphasize the lineage of teaching.

Your presentation here of the Catholic understanding is correct. There is a certain unique power or charism that is passed along through the laying on of hands. They are: (1) the power of sanctification; (2) the charism of the teaching office, which has a unique guidance by the Holy Spirit, not given to all (as Scripture tells us in several places). I need to ask what you mean by “lineage of teaching.” If by it you mean that bishops have a special charism to preserve the teaching of the Church inherent in their office because of a special charism from the Holy Spirit (as Scripture teaches) through the laying of hands, then we are in agreement. If you mean by it that anyone who possesses right teaching has a claim to the office of bishop, then we are not in agreement. The latter position is more akin to the Protestant understanding of apostolic succession than the apostolic concept of it.

The original purpose of arguing a church’s apostolic succession was in polemics against heretics. It is reasonable to assume that if your bishop could trace his ordination to the apostles, then the tradition which he received would be more likely to be authentically apostolic than that of someone that could not trace his succession in this way.

I would argue that the reason that apostolic succession can guarantee the received Tradition is not simply because one can trace the teaching back to the source, but also, and primarily, because that succession possesses the unique protection (or prerogative, if you will) of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. That is known as “the teaching office” of the episcopate, a concept that is clearly established in Scripture.

There is no “Petrine” succession, or “Johanine” succession, etc., but only “apostolic” succession.

The Catholic position is that there is Apostolic Succession from the Apostles, and that within that Apostolic Succession is a unique Petrine succession, that carries on the unique prereogatives of St. Peter that he possessed among the Apostles, as their coryphaeus, confirmer, holder of the keys, teacher of the whole world (that’s what it means to feed my lambs) and rock upon which Christ would build His Church (a rock that cannot ever be separated from St. Peter’s Faith or from Christ).

If not, why wouldn’t we claim special perrogatives for sees founded by John, James, Andrew, etc.?

For the reason that only St. Peter had a distinguished, unique position among the Apostles. It’s that simple.

In the Orthodox tradition all bishops are successors of all the apostles because they inherit the office of the episcopate in common.

So the unique Petrine office established by Christ somehow disappeared? Please explain how that happened, as Christ clearly singled St. Peter out for a unique responsibility among the Apostles. How did this unique responsibility disappear from the Church, and why, and when? Our Lord said that the servant over whom he will set His household will exist when He returns. If our Lord said it, how does Eastern Orthodoxy (or at least cetain quarters of it) justify contradicting the Lord’s words?

Further, why would the church at Rome be the successor of Peter and not Antioch, or other sees that he founded?

First, please offer us a specific quote from a Catholic Magisterial document stating that Rome ALONE possesses succession from St. Peter. Once you can produce that document, then your question here will make sense. For in fact, Rome nowhere teaches that she alone possesses the succession of St. Peter. What she teaches is that Rome alone possesses the PRIMACY of St. Peter.

Can you give a link to the commentary by St. John Chrysostom that you mentioned? I’m not finding it on ccel.org

How I wish I had my hard copy of the NPNF series here. The series contains a biblical index, and that is how I traced St. Chrysostom’s commentary on the Matthew 24 passages.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MilesVitae]

Dear brother Don,
How I wish I had my hard copy of the NPNF series here. The series contains a biblical index, and that is how I traced St. Chrysostom’s commentary on the Matthew 24 passages.

Blessings,
Marduk

We were just discussing this in another thread. Is this the passage from Chrysostom you are talking about?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8713774&postcount=18