Papal Supremacy

[steve_b]

…Continued

TO SMYRNA…not to Rome… why??? Because if there was a Bishop in Rome at that time and especially of great importance and as the RCC suggest that his jurisdiction was of divine and a major Bishop who ruled over all others, then by all means this is where we would have seen it if it was not a flawed, as Ignatios named every bishop major and small alike, now if he didn’t mention Rome at all then maybe that would have been okay, but the longest letter and he spoke very lofty of the Church of Rome BUTTTT no word about the Bishop there let alone the “POPE”.

So who is he writing to? Rome is a huge city. How does he know his letter is even going to get to someone he wants it to.?

He asks the Church not to do anything to prevent his martyrdom. This I would argue presumes, it’s going to the bishop. Otherwise, how does he think the Church will do something like this without the bishop? Who does Ignatius want this letter to go to? Since Ignatius teaches “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop” it’s more than safe to say the bishop of Rome got the letter before Ignatius arrived in the city even if the Roman bishop is not named in the letter.
I:

Okay was there a Bishop in Rome? If you answer yes as I suppose you do and a bishop of lofty rank actually who presides over the whole universal Church per the RCC …etc then how come he wasn’t even mentioned ?

Ignatius teaching and discipline is “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop”

If there wasn’t a bishop, he wouldn’t have written the letter asking them not to save him from martyrdom…

Since Roman persecution at this time is bent on killing Church leaders, maybe Ignatius is not going to name names to protect the bishop.
I:

I agree Ignatios wouldn’t break such rule, but then why did he not mention the Bishop of Rome or directed any words or salutation to him as he did with the others? What says you?

Well, he didn’t mention the bishop of Philadelphia either when he wrote them. Is it an oversight, is the see vacant, or is it just obvious the bishop will be getting the letter? I think you’re trying too hard to get something out of this.
I:

Okay great and well… but how come there is no mentioning of the Bishop of Rome, please do not give any supposition for if you do then a zillion diffrent supposition can I provide, I mean it if there is any historical fact whatever it is I welcome it with great thanks.

It’s a different letter to Rome than all his other letters.

· He doesn’t command anything.
· He doesn’t teach anything.

But he does ask them for

the Church in Syria which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].

. “AND” connects 2 ideas, “AND” Love and regard refer back to oversee. Certainly as it pertains to Romes active concern for that Church that all goes well there until another bishop is named

 

[Ignatios]

Um… no I haven’t retracted from any of my positions. Read again. All my comments.

Okay, very well then…lets see… you said in post # 71:

** “Read the first quote you cited here carefully which can be interpreted supporting the Catholic position as it says: Peter spoke more strongly while James more midly…talk about James being more authoritative than Peter…”**

And you said later the following in post # 75 ( I am being brief for the sake of time, if this is a problem please let me know so I bring up all the details):

“To sum it up, I think this quote neither favors the Catholic or the Orthodox position. Its just a simple comment from St. John speaking of 2 apostles, the authority they had in a council, and that’s it. I see no supremacy from neither here. You may interpret otherwise though.”

Okay now, just to make it clear because it seems that many RC’s lose their sight of what being said here from the Orthodox side i.e. we the Orthodox do not try to undermine St. Peter as being the First among the apostles but this does not mean that he was the only one with authority and the other Apostles act through Peter’s authority, we acknowledge that Peter was the first in everything, the spokesman if you will, the first to make the confession the first to receive the Keys the first to speak also the first to Fall and to denounce Christ and to repent and to be rebuked by Christ and Paul …etc.

So what is it that we are contesting then? It is when the RC’s try attribute to him a unique power that it was not to any other Apostle, to make out of him what the RCC today makes out of the Pope in relation to the other Holy Sees, and lets face it the RCC is not interested in what Peter is, but they elevate Peter to a unique level over and above all the Apostles so they can then somehow connect this to the Pope in relation to all the other Apostolic Sees.

What I said is that the quotes provided by yourself don’t help your position. Since Cavaradossi commented regarding your first quote, I explained (according to my interpretation of St. Johns quotes) why they don’t help your position in any way. I explained that I see no supremacy issues with any of the quotes cited by yourself. I stated why. Read my posts again.

Maybe you should read your own posts again as well.

You however have, not made any comments on the ones I myself provided. You have not tried to interpret any of the quotes provided by me. I gave my opinion of the ones you cited. And why they dont help you. How about you do it now?

I didn’t think that the homilies of St. John needed any interpretation, since it is clear that he was interpreting the Gospel for his hearers.

Lets start with this one:"(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, …this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir;… who was entrusted with the keys of heaven,…(snip for space) Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world." (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3 St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)).-St. John Chrysostom What does St. John mean by ruler of the whole world? Or by the “head of the company”?

Hhhmmm…with your understanding of an Eastern mind no wonder why you are puzzled…but to make the matter more difficult for you here is one from St. Chrysostom:

]“…“Angels often receive the mission of guarding the nations, but none of them ever governed the people confided to him as Paul governed the whole universe. . . .The Hebrew people were confided to Michael the Archangel, and to Paul were committed the earth, the sea, the inhabitants of all the universe–even the desert.” (Panegyric upon St. Paul. 2nd Homily)

Once you found an answer to your quote above you can work on this 

Any respectful historian, scholar or theologian knows what the Eastern means when they speak, and that is you cannot take every word the eastern fathers or else literally, it is well known that they exaggerate or to put it in a better term, they use very lofty languages and flowery expression, I have read this once in one of the Greek sites and it makes so much sense, ( I know it by heart to be true since I am an Eastern from the Middle East also) “…What something means in Greek has to do with what the writer of the Greek is trying to convey” …loool it is very true.

However St Chrysostom’s words were just an Eastern way of speaking for if they were an absolute then how can we reconcile with all of his saying to the others in which he used the same lofty words, other than to show that the Church held all of them in high esteem, for an instance Chrysostom names Paul also"the apostle of the world." [Quoted by Barrow, Treatise on the Pope’s Supremacy.]
HHHHmmmm so it is St Paul also a universal one.

Now how can we reconcile this to what you are suggesting without being obviously prejudice to the Idea of your own church :

"For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven" - First Homily on the Gospel of St. John.”
Now it is John the Universal one …lol

"…The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere." (Chrysostom, on Genesis, Homily 24, Migne PG 53:211, Giles page 165)
OOO NO wait now it is St. Paul the teacher of the World

 

[Ignatios]

…continued

Or this one:

“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387))

-St John Chrysostom

What does St. John mean in the whole paragraph, specially in the bold words?

Lets see first the following, we don’t want to jump in to premature conclusions:

** “And he [Christ] did this [John 21:22] to withdraw them [Peter and John] from the unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they [Peter and John] were about to receive the charge of the world**, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together.” (Chrysostom, on John, Homily 88, ibid)

Now it is John and Peter who are in charge of the world, how about this…lol, listen dear you will go insane trying to enslave an Eastern mind to serve your purpose.

You see what I am talking about, for every quote of St. John that you think it support your Papacy cause be sure that there is another that would may appear that it contradict it or annul your usage purpose of it.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Nine_Two]

…continued

Lets see first the following, we don’t want to jump in to premature conclusions:

** “And he [Christ] did this [John 21:22] to withdraw them [Peter and John] from the unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they [Peter and John] were about to receive the charge of the world**, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together.” (Chrysostom, on John, Homily 88, ibid)

Now it is John and Peter who are in charge of the world, how about this…lol, listen dear you will go insane trying to enslave an Eastern mind to serve your purpose.

You see what I am talking about, for every quote of St. John that you think it support your Papacy cause be sure that there is another that would may appear that it contradict it or annul your usage purpose of it.

GOD bless you all †††

I was just reading St. John Chrysostom’s homily’s on John today and I was thinking of posting much the same thing, I just couldn’t bring myself to bother.

This is why I insisted on context in my first post in this thread. The comment is useless without context.

 

[Jacob50]

Okay, very well then…lets see… you said in post # 71:

** “Read the first quote you cited here carefully which can be interpreted supporting the Catholic position** as it says: Peter spoke more strongly while James more midly…talk about James being more authoritative than Peter…”

And you said later the following in post # 75 ( I am being brief for the sake of time, if this is a problem please let me know so I bring up all the details):

“To sum it up, I think this quote neither favors the Catholic or the Orthodox position. Its just a simple comment from St. John speaking of 2 apostles, the authority they had in a council, and that’s it. I see no supremacy from neither here. You may interpret otherwise though.”

What happened here is you underlined and colored what you wanted to make it look like a contradiction. Post number 71 says “Read the first quote you cited here carefully which can be interpreted supporting the Catholic position"

All I said is the quote provided by yourself depends on interpretation, and that according to my opinion it “can” be interpreted to support the Catholic position. I didn’t say it does. But that it can be viewed that way.

Later on post 75 I give my own opinion after I posted 3 different options of how the quote can be interpreted. Which is that the quote itself helps neither. No contradiction here.

Okay now, just to make it clear because it seems that many RC’s lose their sight of what being said here from the Orthodox side i.e. we the Orthodox do not try to undermine St. Peter as being the First among the apostles but this does not mean that he was the only one with authority and the other Apostles act through Peter’s authority, we acknowledge that Peter was the first in everything, the spokesman if you will, the first to make the confession the first to receive the Keys the first to speak also the first to Fall and to denounce Christ and to repent and to be rebuked by Christ and Paul …etc.

So what is it that we are contesting then? It is when the RC’s try attribute to him a unique power that it was not to any other Apostle, to make out of him what the RCC today makes out of the Pope in relation to the other Holy Sees, and lets face it the RCC is not interested in what Peter is, but they elevate Peter to a unique level over and above all the Apostles so they can then somehow connect this to the Pope in relation to all the other Apostolic Sees.

I understand our view of Peter’s primacy is different. Id say Peter has Supremacy, you’d say he doesn’t. You would say we agree hes the first among equals, but that he does not have an authority above the rest of the apostles. Id say he does. This is what we are contesting.

Maybe you should read your own posts again as well.

Or maybe you should re-read yours.

I didn’t think that the homilies of St. John needed any interpretation, since it is clear that he was interpreting the Gospel for his hearers.

The patristic writings tend to have different interpretations among Christians, so it is important to look at them and see what they mean.

Hhhmmm…with your understanding of an Eastern mind no wonder why you are puzzled…but to make the matter more difficult for you here is one from St. Chrysostom:

]“…"Angels often receive the mission of guarding the nations, but none of them ever governed the people confided to him as Paul governed the whole universe. . . .The Hebrew people were confided to Michael the Archangel, and to Paul were committed the earth, the sea, the inhabitants of all the universe–even the desert." (Panegyric upon St. Paul. 2nd Homily)

Oh gee I’m so puzzled. I wonder who is the current successor of St. Paul. I also wonder if there are other writings concerning St. Paul being the first among equals, being the Rock upon which the Church is built, and if he has a see(s) like St. Peter. I wonder also if Christ gave him the keys of Heaven, if he said his faith wouldn’t fail and after his fall (and coming back) gave him the order to strengthen his brothers, and if he entrusted to him his sheep also. I also wonder what the whole text you provided says without any cuts. And wonder if this actually supports your position that all Bishops are equal in authority, otherwise the quote is useless for your cause.

Any respectful historian, scholar or theologian knows what the Eastern means when they speak, and that is you cannot take every word the eastern fathers or else literally, it is well known that they exaggerate or to put it in a better term, they use very lofty languages and flowery expression, I have read this once in one of the Greek sites and it makes so much sense, ( I know it by heart to be true since I am an Eastern from the Middle East also) “…What something means in Greek has to do with what the writer of the Greek is trying to convey” …loool it is very true.

Of course not every word means literally what it says. But when you see a common pattern among the fathers regarding St. Peter and his authority (and not a common pattern in the case of St. Paul), you find what they wrote to be literal in some cases. Such as the authority of St. Peter.

 

[Jacob50]

However St Chrysostom’s words were just an Eastern way of speaking for if they were an absolute then how can we reconcile with all of his saying to the others in which he used the same lofty words, other than to show that the Church held all of them in high esteem, for an instance Chrysostom names Paul also"the apostle of the world." [Quoted by Barrow, Treatise on the Pope’s Supremacy.]
HHHHmmmm so it is St Paul also a universal one.

Now how can we reconcile this to what you are suggesting without being obviously prejudice to the Idea of your own church :

"For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven" - First Homily on the Gospel of St. John.”
Now it is John the Universal one …lol

It says John is pillar of the Churches, not that he has more authority than St. Peter. Since Ephesians 2:20 says the household of God was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, it is perfectly fine to call St. John Pillar, specially since he wrote his Gospel and Revelations. In fact all the apostles are pillars.The fact it says he holds has the kingdom of Heaven is explained in the following way. The Keys are given to Peter only Matt 16:19, never did Christ said this to any other apostle. But some Fathers wrote that the Church has the keys because it receives them through Saint Peter. So in a way, all Bishops have keys as long as they are in unity with Saint Peter.

Let me quote 2 times Tertullian as a brief example:

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

-Tertullian

So Christ gave his keys to Peter only, not to anyone else. This is reckoned by other Fathers in a similar way. And then we see:

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

-Tertullian

Only Peter has the Keys in a special way, but if you are in unity with him the Church herself has these keys through him. So it is not a contradiction to see St. John Chrysostom saying St. John the apostle holds the keys.

And… this quote neither suggests supremacy or that all the apostles are equal in rank. So it doesn’t’ help your position in any way.

"…The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere." (Chrysostom, on Genesis, Homily 24, Migne PG 53:211, Giles page 165)
OOO NO wait now it is St. Paul the teacher of the World

Surely St. Paul is the teacher of the whole world. His epistles even to this day continue teaching all of us, but this statement from St. John Chrysostom does not mean St. Paul has authority everywhere. My interpretation is that St. Paul’s efforts (how many letters he wrote) taught the whole world. And still do. But I don’t see any statement here that suggests that his authority is of a higher or equal rank than St. Peter’s. I don’t even see St. Peter mentioned here so no.

 

[Jacob50]

…continued

Lets see first the following, we don’t want to jump in to premature conclusions:

** “And he [Christ] did this [John 21:22] to withdraw them [Peter and John] from the unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they [Peter and John] were about to receive the charge of the world**, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together.” (Chrysostom, on John, Homily 88, ibid)

Now it is John and Peter who are in charge of the world, how about this…lol, listen dear you will go insane trying to enslave an Eastern mind to serve your purpose.

It sounds very different to say that Peter and John receive the charge of the world than to say that Peter and John are in charge of the world which is what you said (as if you those 2 alone had such charge). Yes, Peter and John received the charge of the world did they not? In fact all the apostles did. Did they not?

This in no way means Peter’s authority is the same as John’s. This also doesn’t mean that both Peter and John are above the rest of the apostles. It says they received the charge of the world, which is true. Nothing more. No one is trying to enslave easterners, rather debating Petrine primacy with them. Because one or the other is right, either the interpretation of the RC, or that of the EO. Debating is not enslaving.

You see what I am talking about, for every quote of St. John that you think it support your Papacy cause be sure that there is another that would may appear that it contradict it or annul your usage purpose of it.

GOD bless you all †††

You be sure of that too. Compare writings of St. John suggesting that all bishops are equal in authority, with those that we Catholics can use to back up Peter’s position (papacy). How many can you find backing your position according to your interpretation? Not many.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jacob,

Coming from the Oriental Tradition, I have no problem with your use of the term “supreme” (if used in a collegial context).

But you should know that when you use the term “supreme” in discussing the matter with those of the Eastern Byzantine Tradition, you will almost always get a defensive stance from them, because the term has connotations of control and absolutism to many or most from the Eastern Tradition.

Your arguments are very good. Just be aware that they will fall on deaf ears if your hearer is in defensive mode.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jacob,

I understand our view of Peter’s primacy is different. Id say Peter has Supremacy, you’d say he doesn’t. You would say we agree hes the first among equals, but that he does not have an authority above the rest of the apostles. Id say he does. This is what we are contesting.

Just to be clear, though I have no problem with your use of the term “supreme,” I would like to comment on the highlighted portion above. I definitely don’t adhere to the position of SOME (not all) EO that a head bishop has a mere primacy of honor, with nothing more than administrative duties (the Low Petrine position). Nor do I adhere to the idea that a head bishop has power over those whom he is set to feed at his mere discretion (the Absolutist Petrine position). The authority of a head bishop, whether he be a Metropolitan, Patriarch or Pope is a COLLEGIAL authority. He can exercise this collegial authority in a formal manner either personally or with the college, but it is an authority that can never be separated from the College of which he is always a part.

When you say that “Peter has an authority above the rest of the Apostles,” I can agree with you according to the following understanding:
(1) Peter can exercise personally what is within the authority of all the Apostles combined to do.
(2) This authority can ONLY be used according to the needs of the Church, not according to the mere discretion of Peter.
(3) Peter is “above” ONLY if the other Apostles need correction. Otherwise, they are all equals because they have the same font of knowledge and authority who is Christ.
(4) Peter himself is not above correction by the other Apostles, and must accept it when it is proper and/or required.

But if you are saying that Peter is “above” in the sense that:
(1) Peter’s authority is separated from the authority of the rest of the Apostles;
(2) the Apostles must follow ANYthing he says.
(3) Peter is the last word on EVERYthing.
… then I must disagree with you.

Oh gee I’m so puzzled. I wonder who is the current successor of St. Paul. I also wonder if there are other writings concerning St. Paul being the first among equals, being the Rock upon which the Church is built, and if he has a see(s) like St. Peter. I wonder also if Christ gave him the keys of Heaven, if he said his faith wouldn’t fail and after his fall (and coming back) gave him the order to strengthen his brothers, and if he entrusted to him his sheep also. I also wonder what the whole text you provided says without any cuts. And wonder if this actually supports your position that all Bishops are equal in authority, otherwise the quote is useless for your cause.

Very good.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Jacob50]

Dear brother Jacob,

Coming from the Oriental Tradition, I have no problem with your use of the term “supreme” (if used in a collegial context).

But you should know that when you use the term “supreme” in discussing the matter with those of the Eastern Byzantine Tradition, you will almost always get a defensive stance from them, because the term has connotations of control and absolutism to many or most from the Eastern Tradition.

Your arguments are very good. Just be aware that they will fall on deaf ears if your hearer is in defensive mode.

Blessings,
Marduk

Oh ma bad I didn’t know that. What other word(s) should I use?

 

[Jacob50]

Dear brother Jacob,

Just to be clear, though I have no problem with your use of the term “supreme,” I would like to comment on the highlighted portion above. I definitely don’t adhere to the position of SOME (not all) EO that a head bishop has a mere primacy of honor, with nothing more than administrative duties (the Low Petrine position). Nor do I adhere to the idea that a head bishop has power over those whom he is set to feed at his mere discretion (the Absolutist Petrine position). The authority of a head bishop, whether he be a Metropolitan, Patriarch or Pope is a COLLEGIAL authority. He can exercise this collegial authority in a formal manner either personally or with the college, but it is an authority that can never be separated from the College of which he is always a part.

When you say that “Peter has an authority above the rest of the Apostles,” I can agree with you according to the following understanding:
(1) Peter can exercise personally what is within the authority of all the Apostles combined to do.
(2) This authority can ONLY be used according to the needs of the Church, not according to the mere discretion of Peter.
(3) Peter is “above” ONLY if the other Apostles need correction. Otherwise, they are all equals because they have the same font of knowledge and authority who is Christ.
(4) Peter himself is not above correction by the other Apostles, and must accept it when it is proper and/or required.

But if you are saying that Peter is “above” in the sense that:
(1) Peter’s authority is separated from the authority of the rest of the Apostles;
(2) the Apostles must follow ANYthing he says.
(3) Peter is the last word on EVERYthing.
… then I must disagree with you.

Very good.

Blessings,
Marduk

When I say “Peter has an authority above the rest of the Apostles” I mean the 4 first points you pointed out. I don’t mean to say that Peter is some kind of tyrant. Or that he can do whatever he wants. The Pope’s authority has its limit, yep.

 

[mardukm]

Oh ma bad I didn’t know that. What other word(s) should I use?

I need to go, brother. I will be back later to offer some advice on how to approach this issue. I feel I have good experience in the matter because I use to be on the other side of the fence before I joined the Catholic communion, using the same old tired arguments against the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

I understand our view of Peter’s primacy is different. Id say Peter has Supremacy, you’d say he doesn’t. You would say we agree hes the first among equals,

Good response btw.

Here’s a document you can use in the future to show that phrase, no pope agreed to.

Pope Benedict XVI clarifies the issue of “first among equals”, the “Patriarchal system” in the following

1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

to finish and for context
J:

but that he does not have an authority above the rest of the apostles. Id say he does. This is what we are contesting.

I didn’t read your 200 quotes you refer to. I hope to do that. Was this following quote by chance among them?

Jesus tells His apostles, one of them (Peter) will be greatest among the apostles.

Luke 22: Upper Room (all emphasis mine)

24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 26 the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules(hegeomai) like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (plural) as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you(singular), Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen (sterizo) your brothers.”

Hegeomai(Jesus is referring to Simon)

definition

1. to lead
   a) to go before
   b) to be a leader
2. to rule, command
3. to have authority over
4. a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel,

Sterizo ( Simon is )

1. to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix the apostles
2. to strengthen, make firm the other apostles
3. to render constant, confirm, the apostles

That’s how Jesus ended their argument.

It goes with the keys Jesus gave Peter

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I think we need not write as if the Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical discussions have yet to begin . . .

The idea that the Petrine Ministry of the Pope was established for all time and in its current form at the time of St Clement is simply ahistorical. And the authority of the pope of Rome within a reunited Church is open to debate and realignment.

As an Eastern Catholic, I must respond to Steve’s earlier statement about how the RC Church is doing well with 1.3 billion followers as compared to the patriarchates of the East that “broke away.”

I find that kind of language horribly offensive to all Eastern Orthodox Christians and one which Roman Catholic scholars that are engaged iin ecumenical relations with Orthodoxy would reject outrightly. That such has gone unchecked by the administrators and moderators here is also most surprising. It shows that this is an exclusively Latin website that only allows for Eastern Catholic viewpoints when they approximate Latinized perspectives.

If numerical quantity ever was an indication that someone is ‘in the right,’ then orthodox catholic Christians in the time of St Athanasius would have joined the Arian movement that, at that time, outnumbered them.

Also, the sheer numerical quantity of Roman Catholics in the world has no bearing on the quality of their spiritual life or even their standing in the church. Any child can be baptized and can have their name entered in a parish registry. But entire “Catholic” areas such as Latin America and even Europe appear to exhibit a Catholic culture only with a severe falling away from actual Catholic practice.

Orthodox Churches in countries that have long persecuted Christians, especially Russia, show a remarkably strong and deepened spiritual life together with many priestly and monastic vocations.

I’ve been to RC and EC parishes throughout Canada and the U.S. The spiritual life of Orthodox parishes never fails to inspire me and make me very jealous of what they have by comparison.

So, in answer to Steve’s question, the Orthodox Churches are doing very well - even without communion with the pope of Rome.

Alex

 

[Jacob50]

I need to go, brother. I will be back later to offer some advice on how to approach this issue. I feel I have good experience in the matter because I use to be on the other side of the fence before I joined the Catholic communion, using the same old tired arguments against the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Ok, thx.

Blessings to you too.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

I think we need not write as if the Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical discussions have yet to begin . . .

As an Eastern Catholic, I must respond to Steve’s earlier statement about how the RC Church is doing well with 1.3 billion followers as compared to the patriarchates of the East that “broke away.”

I find that kind of language horribly offensive to all Eastern Orthodox Christians and one which Roman Catholic scholars that are engaged iin ecumenical relations with Orthodoxy would reject outrightly. That such has gone unchecked by the administrators and moderators here is also most surprising. It shows that this is an exclusively Latin website that only allows for Eastern Catholic viewpoints when they approximate Latinized perspectives.

If numerical quantity ever was an indication that someone is ‘in the right,’ then orthodox catholic Christians in the time of St Athanasius would have joined the Arian movement that, at that time, outnumbered them.

Also, the sheer numerical quantity of Roman Catholics in the world has no bearing on the quality of their spiritual life or even their standing in the church. Any child can be baptized and can have their name entered in a parish registry. But entire “Catholic” areas such as Latin America and even Europe appear to exhibit a Catholic culture only with a severe falling away from actual Catholic practice.

Orthodox Churches in countries that have long persecuted Christians, especially Russia, show a remarkably strong and deepened spiritual life together with many priestly and monastic vocations.

I’ve been to RC and EC parishes throughout Canada and the U.S. The spiritual life of Orthodox parishes never fails to inspire me and make me very jealous of what they have by comparison.

So, in answer to Steve’s question, the Orthodox Churches are doing very well - even without communion with the pope of Rome.

So very well said, and very true.

The idea that the Petrine Ministry of the Pope was established for all time and in its current form at the time of St Clement is simply ahistorical.

Would I be correct to understand the intent of your statement to be “The idea that the Petrine Ministry of the Pope was established for all time in its current form at the time of St. Clement is simply ahistorical?” The difference is that I took out the term “and” in your original statement. I can agree with your statement 100% without the “and.” With the conjunction, it seems you are implying that the first clause (“the Petrine Ministry of the Pope was established for all time”) can be taken on its own as “ahistorical.”

And the authority of the pope of Rome within a reunited Church is open to debate and realignment.

Agreed. Of course, as you know, I am one who believes that the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy is God-ordained. The debate and realignment applies only to the (1) interpretation of that dogmatic teaching (there is still way too much of an Absolutist Petrine current in the minds of too many Catholics *) and (2) its canonical application (our canons still reflect a siege mentality on the part of the papacy, though this one can’t really be helped given the state of schism with our Orthodox brethren).

Blessings,
Marduk*

 

[Jacob50]

Good response btw.

Here’s a document you can use in the future to show that phrase, no pope agreed to.

Good document thx.

I didn’t read your 200 quotes you refer to. I hope to do that. Was this following quote by chance among them?

Jesus tells His apostles, one of them (Peter) will be greatest among the apostles.

Luke 22: Upper Room (all emphasis mine)

24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 26 the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules(hegeomai) like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (plural) as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you(singular), Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen (sterizo) your brothers.”

Hegeomai(Jesus is referring to Simon)

definition

1. to lead
   a) to go before
   b) to be a leader
2. to rule, command
3. to have authority over
4. a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel,

Sterizo ( Simon is )

1. to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix the apostles
2. to strengthen, make firm the other apostles
3. to render constant, confirm, the apostles

That’s how Jesus ended their argument.

It goes with the keys Jesus gave Peter

Hmmm I never saw an approach of Luke 22 that way (Luke 22:24-34). I find it unique that Satan demands to have Peter only (no mention of the other apostles) so that he can sift him like wheat. Because, if you want to destroy the Church (which of course will never happen), you start from the Head. Afterwards Jesus only speaks about praying for Peter…

Then Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brethren (after his fall). This is related with John 21. Just a bit later (Luke 54-62) Peter denies Jesus 3 times. But after his resurrection, the 3 denials are somewhat annulled when Jesus asks: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” The word “these” refers to the other apostles. And we know Peter answers he loves our Lord 3 times, and for each time Jesus says “Feed my sheep/lambs”. Something unique which Jesus didn’t say to an other apostle. Here Jesus is leaving Peter as the Shepherd of the Whole Church. Because it is the Shepherd that feeds the lambs/sheep. Feeding them is a way of “strengthening them”. And the sheep follow the Shepherd. Of course Jesus is the good Shepherd (John 10:11) who lays down his life for the sheep. But Jesus makes Peter also shepherd of the visible Church by saying “Feed my sheep”. In the same way, Jesus is Rock, and makes Peter the Rock (Matt 16:18). Because there must be a visible authority. According to my interpretation, if we see Genesis 49:24, Jacob called his Lord “Shepherd and Rock”. So if Peter is Shepherd, Matt 16:18 is certainly referring to Peter as Rock (or else the name change wouldn’t make sense). The sheep are of Jesus (Feed my sheep he says), but they are entrusted to Peter.

All this is my interpretation, hopefully in accord with the Catholic Church.

I just think that this language we find applied to Peter, is quite meaningless without papacy. If papacy was a lie (in the sense that it is an invention by the RCC), id see this language quite irrelevant. It just wouldn’t make sense to me…

It is possible then, that Jesus is talking of Peter in Luke 22:24-30 knowing that a bit after he says: “behold, Satan has demanded to sift you…”

After Jesus told Peter “Feed my Sheep/Lamb” he then spoke to him about how he was going to die. This of course, in Rome. I think its all related.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jacob,

I need to go, brother. I will be back later to offer some advice on how to approach this issue. I feel I have good experience in the matter because I use to be on the other side of the fence before I joined the Catholic communion, using the same old tired arguments against the papacy.

Thank you for your patience.

Before giving advice, I want to repost the following statement I made from another thread on the papacy a few months ago so you can better understand my point of view:

At this time, I would like to offer something which I don’t think I’ve ever presented – an explanation of why I felt compelled to create the distinctions between the Absolutist, High, and Low Petrine views. As already stated many times before, I had a gross misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on the papacy, imbibed from years of indoctrination while in the Coptic Orthodox Church. I was only able to accept the doctrinal basis for the papacy by getting the actual teaching from the horse’s mouth. But my journey to the Catholic Church did not consist of reading apologetics works or other popular Catholic material. The very great majority of my studies involved reading only primary, patristic and Magisterial sources. This led to my discovery of the Official Relatio of V1, which cured my doctrinal ills regarding the papacy. It was a pleasant surprise to learn I was wrong. For about two years after I joined the Catholic communion (and about a year before that), I was supporting the actual teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy against the misrepresentations of my Orthodox brethren. But imagine my pointedly UNpleasant surprise when I eventually came upon Catholics, or those who claimed to be Catholic, defend the very errors that I was attempting to correct among my Orthodox brethren!!! I knew for a fact that these errors were not Catholic teachings, and I could not align myself with the beliefs of these Catholics (or others who called themselves “Catholic”). That was the birth in my mind’s eye of the ideological differences and terminology of “Absolutist Petrine” and “High Petrine.” The terminology of “Low Petrine” came at the same time, but the ideological differences between the High Petrine and Low Petrine views I had already formulated long before I became Catholic. For many years in the Coptic Orthodox Church, I had already noticed, and sometimes debated, the ideological differences between Coptic/Oriental Orthodox ecclesiology and Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology. Sometimes, I came upon EO who had what I considered to be a very Oriental Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology. Other times, I came upon EO who supported something akin to a Protestant, democratic ecclesiology, who denied the existence of head bishops, who felt the laity could depose their bishops or judge the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, etc., etc., ideas which were foreign to me (and repeated by some EO members here in CAF).

The thread in which I stated the above is:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=599730

Please take the time to read posts #1 - 4 and #53 - 57 in that thread.

That said:
(1) Avoid utilizing the term “supremacy” when addressing EASTERN (i.e., Byzantine) apostolic Christians - utilize the term "primacy." The term “supremacy” is really foreign to the Eastern Byzantine Tradition as far as ecclesiology is concerned - it is something very different from “primacy.” The Oriental Tradition, on the other hand, utilizes the term “supreme” of its head bishops regularly - it is practically identical to “primacy” since the term “supreme” in the Oriental Tradition is ALWAYS taken in the context of collegiality (if you have time, try to familiarize yourself with the families of Churches that constitute the Eastern Orthodox Churches as distinct from the Oriental Orthodox Churches). Whenever you use the term “supremacy” or “supreme” in discussing matters of the papacy with an EASTERN apostolic Christian. he/she will almost surely assume you are presenting the Pope as an absolute monarch whose mere will overrides any other consideration. Even if you try to deny that, the fact that you even use that term "supreme will foil all your efforts at explanation - you are speaking with “forked tongue” if, despite all your explanation that you don’t intend to present the Pope as an absolute monarch, you are still using “supreme” in your language.

NOTE: Absolutist Petrine advocates who really seem not too concerned about unity with our Orthodox brethren love to flaunt that term “supremacy.” They really don’t care if the term has connotations of absolute control to Eastern apostolic Christians because that really is the manner in which they want to present the papacy.

(2) Before launching into a defense of the papacy, be MORE ready to acknowledge the points of agreement first. For example, in your discussion on Acts 15, you should have acknowledged first that you recongize that St. James was indeed the bishop of the Jerusalem Church, and thus its head. Presenting your immediate argument in support of papal primacy/supremacy is an indication that you are denying this. By using this method, not only are you establishing common ground, but you can show that the claims of the non-Catholic really do nothing to diminish the Catholic position.

Another example is post #68 in this thread. Our Orthodox brother Dcointin proferred:
“The difference is that I haven’t yet seen it demonstrated that the Pope is the bishop of all churches.”
Did you read the response of 1AugustSon7? It was completely inappropriate. The only proper response should have been agreement with brother Dcointin, because the Catholic Church NOWHERE teaches that the Pope is “the bishop of all Churches.”

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

(3) Please be aware of the differences between the Absolutist Petrine view and the High Petrine view. The High Petrine view is the official position of the Catholic Church, as taught by Vatican 1 and 2. But many, both within and outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, mistakenly misunderstand the Catholic Church to be teaching the Absolutist Petrine view. The following are the highlights of the Absolutist Petrine view that distinguishes it from the High Petrine doctrine of the Catholic Church:

(1) An Ecumenical Council is infallible because of the Pope alone.
(2) An Ecumenical Council is authoritative because of the Pope alone.
(3) The Pope does not have to listen to the teaching of the orthodox bishops of the Catholic Church when making an ex cathedra decree.
(4) Vatican 1 had no authority to limit the authority of the Pope.
(5) There will come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth.
(6) There will come a time when the Pope will be the only orthodox member of the Church left on earth.
(7) The authority of the Pope is not constrained by the needs of the Church, but only by his mere discretion.
(8) The Pope can do away with the Eastern and Oriental Traditions on his sole discretion.

These points of disagreement are actual matters about which I and other Catholics (Latin, Oriental and Eastern) have debated Absolutist Petrine advocates (other Latin Catholics, and others who are members of SSPX) here in CAF. I hope we here in the ECF can count on your support for the High Petrine view.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

I think we need not write as if the Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical discussions have yet to begin . . .

The idea that the Petrine Ministry of the Pope was established for all time and in its current form at the time of St Clement is simply ahistorical. And the authority of the pope of Rome within a reunited Church is open to debate and realignment.

As an Eastern Catholic, I must respond to Steve’s earlier statement about how the RC Church is doing well with 1.3 billion followers as compared to the patriarchates of the East that “broke away.”

I find that kind of language horribly offensive to all Eastern Orthodox Christians and one which Roman Catholic scholars that are engaged iin ecumenical relations with Orthodoxy would reject outrightly.

Alex,

Here’s the sequence.

Ignatios said
Originally Posted by I
*Easy??? Is that why the RCC been trying to assert this for well over a millennium and every time they try a schism happens should I remind you that one of the reasons that the schism happens because of this assertion not to mention the schisms that took place prior to this one. *

I responded to Ignatios

The chair of Peter is still here and 1.3 B people are in communion with Peter’s successor.
Those that broke away from the chair of Peter… Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc etc . … how are they doing today?

A bit different than you state it,…agreed?
A:

That such has gone unchecked by the administrators and moderators here is also most surprising.

You misrepresent what I said, and somehow I’m at fault?
A:

It shows that this is an exclusively Latin website that only allows for Eastern Catholic viewpoints when they approximate Latinized perspectives.

So I’m not allowed a view? Who says Ignatios is correct? You act as if we’re trying to invent the papacy that has never existed from the beginning, and if somehow I don’t accept an opposing perspective, I’m not allowed to express it? And if I do the cards have been tampered with in my favor?
A:

If numerical quantity ever was an indication that someone is ‘in the right,’ then orthodox catholic Christians in the time of St Athanasius would have joined the Arian movement that, at that time, outnumbered them.

We’re talking about 2000 years of history here. So far only the first 180 years are being discussed. A pattern is being laid out. A sequence of events is being presented and discussed. We know where it is going, but there is still the origin to examine.

Did I jump to all the schism activity? No.Who is doing the accusing? Ignatios brought that up.
A:

Also, the sheer numerical quantity of Roman Catholics in the world has no bearing on the quality of their spiritual life or even their standing in the church.

Not the topic
A:

Any child can be baptized and can have their name entered in a parish registry. But entire “Catholic” areas such as Latin America and even Europe appear to exhibit a Catholic culture only with a severe falling away from actual Catholic practice.

Not the topic.
A:

Orthodox Churches in countries that have long persecuted Christians, especially Russia, show a remarkably strong and deepened spiritual life together with many priestly and monastic vocations.

Are you somehow upset with quotes from Clement’s letter to the Corinthians that I posted ~90’s a.d.? I think it was around post 80

Those quotes are on topic.
A:

I’ve been to RC and EC parishes throughout Canada and the U.S. The spiritual life of Orthodox parishes never fails to inspire me and make me very jealous of what they have by comparison.

So, in answer to Steve’s question, the Orthodox Churches are doing very well - even without communion with the pope of Rome.

Alex

My question in response to Ignatios was, how is Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople Jerusalem ……doing?