Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[crazzeto]

There is no “Low Petraine” view.

There is early church ecclesiology, and opposed to that there is Ultramontanism.

yes, actually there is such a thing… It is a view that every Bishop is a successor to St. Peter. From ByzCath.org on the matter

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/347840/Petrine%20Views

Low Petrine view: Every bishop is a successor of St. Peter. There is often a denial that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles. A head bishop has only a primacy of honor, and no primacy of jurisdiction, and possesses a merely local jurisdiction of his own See/diocese. He has no authority different from any of his brother bishops. At best, he is a spokesman for or representative of his brother bishops. If there is a disagreement between his brother bishops and himself, he must always concede to the will of the majority. Those who hold this view sometimes deny that there is even such a thing as a head bishop.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Do you believe the pope holds different views today? I doubt that simply because he wrote those words as a cardinal, following his years as a professor. Perhaps one could argue that his views have changed since his early priesthood, but what he wrote in that book is the result of years and years of study.

I believe you have to continue to read what in fact the Pope is stating. By chosing to cherry pick a statement as Cardinal ignores what is in fact more clearly defined and stated as Pope.

There are many examples of this reality most recently in relation to statements clarified in relation to Fatima. Not that this an area we are elaborating on but nevertheless another example.

I “think” we can conclude the man is a extremely gifted theologian. Often a single word in a statement of his leads one to believe he is stating what may in fact need further clarification. In essense what I am saying is that Pope Benedict has elaborated on communion much more in-depth than when he was cardinal as in his interview in “Light of the World” in 2010.

And even at this point he’s digressed by stating “Dominus Iesus” had to be reviewed which he admitts is in itself is complex. Yet his statement leaves no doubt that the "exact’ issue is admisitrative authority. In other words “mans own created issues”.

Lets be honest here, there’s not a spiritual lack of understanding here by those who truly follow this. There are issues with respect to the EO which simply cannot be overlooked and rightfully so. At the same time we must always uphold the Word of God first.

To me debating about Apostolic Succession of the EO and CC is error. The two churchs clearly hold Apostolic Succession and are the original church. What seems to be stumbling block is ethnic and racial barriers along with admistrative authority arrived over time. For example as stated when we take statements made by early church fathers when we lived as ONE HOLY and APOSTLOIC Church and then apply this to a Roman Catholic teaching.

Its my opinion the church need to sit down “first” then work on honestly evaluatiing where they stand in relation to the One Holy Apostloic Church. Not allude to the idea that there can be no communon till everyone is first in agreement. Follow where I’m coming from?

And yes, this will be no walk in the park. But we also are not afforded the time in Revelations to continues to put this off in human error.

Let me clear, I have no problem with the EO holding equal authority with the Pope being the “spiritual leader and speaker” And I also believe Benedict is intelligent enough to understand the EO holds very valid position especially since early on He taugh as professor of orthodoxy. None of this is foreign to him. He is a Christ Centered Pope. Yet his first statment as elected Pope is we must follow "Our Lady of Fatima.
A very strong statement which no-one expected. Let alone his 2010 homily at Fatima which was construed as a prophetic message of mystical importance, he further explained was taken out of context and not his intention and quickly stated he is NOT a Mystic.

Anyway gives an idea of what where I’m coming from.

Threads are dificult do to so many ideas and directions. Such as Mose’s and the Law of the OT. This has no bearing on the Messianic prophecy being completed. Or the Word of Christ establishing His ministry. nevertheless we also cannot exclude the OT since in so many wasy it relates to the NT.

This becomes a complex topic which often creates ill will and feelings toward each other which in truth as I have come know many of the Orthodox brothers ans sisters here I just fail to see as big of an issue as we make out. We act off our feelings in defence of our own beliefs.

We simply are assumimg here to a large degree since the Patriarchs and the Pope are talking as recently as May 2011. Honestly I see the pressure of the Bishops and Cardinals today as an issue with the increasing effort of the consecration of Russia.

Obviously Pariarch Kirill is offended by this, But I also believe converstion of Russia is a falacy in chastisement. Russia is a means chose to save the World and need be correctly explained and involve the Patriarch. Not say “Hey look we want to do this is it OK with you”. How about since we are one church in time we complete this together. And allow the Patriarch to expand His church through the converstion which does take place. When we can love and respect to this degree. The Catholic/Orhtodox will be not an ssue.

My contention is not Paul was never in Rome. Paul was chosen by God to travel the mediteranian due to His being known in Rome and his fear of immediate Martrydom. Which eventually happened anyway through Gods calling of both Peter and Paul.

Legend has it at the Vatican Peter was fleeing Rome for his life when he received a vision of Christ. He asked the Lord where he was headed. “Back to Rome to be Crucified for the second time” was His response. Peter obviously took this that he must return to Rome to be crucified. And he chose upside down because he felt he was not worthy to die as the Lord had?

God Bless, Gary

 

[Cavaradossi]

yes, actually there is such a thing… It is a view that every Bishop is a successor to St. Peter. From ByzCath.org on the matter

Low Petrine view: Every bishop is a successor of St. Peter. There is often a denial that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles. A head bishop has only a primacy of honor, and no primacy of jurisdiction, and possesses a merely local jurisdiction of his own See/diocese. He has no authority different from any of his brother bishops. At best, he is a spokesman for or representative of his brother bishops. If there is a disagreement between his brother bishops and himself, he must always concede to the will of the majority. Those who hold this view sometimes deny that there is even such a thing as a head bishop.

In other words, the original ecclesiology of the Church, where Rome was subject to the council and not the other way around and where Rome’s primacy, formally invested in her through the Council of Nicaea, came by virtue of her status as the royal city and the seat of secular power rather than from a divine “Petrine” right to rule.

 

[jlhargus]

The Patriarch of Antioch also traces his succession back to Peter. It is also usually understood that the power to bind and loose has been inherited by all bishops, not just the bishops who can directly trace their lineage back to Peter. We don’t really have the concept that there is one successor of Peter who then confers Peter’s power upon the rest of the Church (unless you happen to be reading the more ecumenically minded Orthodox writers like Kallistos Ware), which is a view which seems to be prevalent amongst Catholics…

JL: I don’t dispute the Patriarch of Antioch can trace his succession back to Peter, it makes no difference. Peter left Antioch with the keys and went to Rome. You still have not told me which Orthodox do not recognize Rome as the see of Peter and what see they do recognize as Peter’s.

Catholics also don’t have the concept the Pope confers Peter’s power upon the rest of the Chruch. Peter alone is given the keys along with the authority to bind and loose, Mt16:19. All apostles as a group (which includes Peter) and bsishops have the authority to bind and loose, but only in union with the holder of the keys. Mt18:18

 

[crazzeto]

In other words, the original ecclesiology of the Church, where Rome was subject to the council and not the other way around and where Rome’s primacy, formally invested in her through the Council of Nicaea, came by virtue of her status as the royal city and the seat of secular power rather than from a divine “Petrine” right to rule.

Ah, no… But of course this is where the argument is isn’t it… I would argue in favor of the High Petrine view, and I would argue we have no shortage of fathers affirming this view from the first three centuries forward.

 

[Cavaradossi]

JL: I don’t dispute the Patriarch of Antioch can trace his succession back to Peter, it makes no difference. Peter left Antioch with the keys and went to Rome. You still have not told me which Orthodox do not recognize Rome as the see of Peter and what see they do recognize as Peter’s.

Yes, I did. I told you that the keys and the power to bind and loose are inherited by all bishops. Rome might be the See of Peter by virtue of Peter’s martyrdom in the city of Rome, but that doesn’t confer any sort of divine right to rule upon Rome.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ah, no… But of course this is where the argument is isn’t it… I would argue in favor of the High Petrine view, and I would argue we have no shortage of fathers affirming this view from the first three centuries forward.

The problem, however, with looking at the writings of the fathers, like interpreting scripture, is that they are filled with figurative language and hyperbole, hence why they can be interpreted in two different ways to come to two completely different conclusions.

 

[mardukm]

There is no “Low Petraine” view.

There is early church ecclesiology, and opposed to that there is Ultramontanism.

Sure there is, and it is distinguished on the following points (among others) from the High Petrine view of the early Church:

(1) Head bishops have only a primacy of honor;
(2) Head bishops have no real jurisdiction or authority outside their own immediate diocese;
(3) The judgment of the head bishop on its own is not necessary, but he is always subject to the will of the majority;

These are novel elements of the Low Petrine view that cannot be found in the Tradition of the Fathers in the first millenium. The Low Petrine view is just as much a cause for the schism on the matter of ecclesiology as the Absolutist Petrine view.

Further, you are confusing Ultramontanism with NEO-ultramontanism. Ultramontanism is the High Petrine view of the Catholic Church enshrined by Vatican 1 and 2. NEO-ultramontanism is the Absolutist Petrine view that also existed during the time of Vatican 1, but which was repudiated. Neo-ultramontanism experienced a resurgence after Vatican 2, exhibited primarily in the beliefs of schismatic groups such as SSPX. Frustration over abuses in the Latin Liturgy has also caused a resurgence of neo-ultramontanism in the Latin Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jlhargus]

Yes, I did. I told you that the keys and the power to bind and loose are inherited by all bishops. Rome might be the See of Peter by virtue of Peter’s martyrdom in the city of Rome, but that doesn’t confer any sort of divine right to rule upon Rome.

JL: Thanks, that was my point Catholics and Orthodox KNOW and recognize Rome as the see of Peter. I was not speaking of the Pope’s authority. We all know Othodox do not recognize the authority of Rome.

 

[Cavaradossi]

JL: Thanks, that was my point Catholics and Orthodox KNOW and recognize Rome as the see of Peter. I was not speaking of the Pope’s authority. We all know Othodox do not recognize the authority of Rome.

Yes, but it’s nothing more than an honorary title.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

The problem, however, with looking at the writings of the fathers, like interpreting scripture, is that they are filled with figurative language and hyperbole, hence why they can be interpreted in two different ways to come to two completely different conclusions.

There is really much more the EO can find in common with Catholics on the basis of the High Petrine view than might be readily evident. We (Eastern, Oriental, and very many Latin Catholics) are with you as far as opposing the excesses of the Absolutist Petrine view. But just because we can unite with you against the Absolutist Petrine Neo-ultramontanist excesses, that does not mean that within your own Church, there are not excesses that gravitate toward a Low Petrine view that is just as equally UNpatristic as the Absolutist Petrine view.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

JL: I don’t dispute the Patriarch of Antioch can trace his succession back to Peter, it makes no difference. Peter left Antioch with the keys and went to Rome. You still have not told me which Orthodox do not recognize Rome as the see of Peter and what see they do recognize as Peter’s.

Agree’d this becomes the point. We also don’t deny St Peter and Paul are often mentioned in context with each other. But no-where is St Paul considered Bishop of Rome and certainly not in Catholic Church history. *. There may be some thinking as to this content, it would have to be supported by evidence. In other words show me a statement by an early Church Father that states Paul was Bishop of Rome? I may be wrong but I don’t believe one exists. In Rome together at times yes. Paul couldn’t stay in Rome, he killed Christians by the truck load for Rome. In common sense how could he preach in Rome at this level?

Stating the Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; is not uncommon and not only with Christians, yet the Primacy here is not in question nor has it ever been. But as far the EO St. John Chrysostom on Peter as Bishop this ought to be enough to sum this up in his writtings. I should add in all fairness I never heard this promoted by Orthodox members.

philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm*

 

[dzheremi]

I like how the evidence that the “high/low Petrine” distinction is a real thing and not just something cooked up to re-frame this argument on more Rome-favorable terms is a link to another thread started by Mardukm on a different forum. Hahahaha. Good show!

 

[GaryTaylor]

I like how the evidence that the “high/low Petrine” distinction is a real thing and not just something cooked up to re-frame this argument on more Rome-favorable terms is a link to another thread started by Mardukm on a different forum. Hahahaha. Good show!

Hey long time time no see [or hear]. How are you?

 

[dzheremi]

Hey Gary. I’m good, thanks for asking. Just running around like crazy, preparing for a move to Albuquerque, NM in 5 days. How are you?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hey Gary. I’m good, thanks for asking. Just running around like crazy, preparing for a move to Albuquerque, NM in 5 days. How are you?

Very good, and Good Luck. The Heat Wave been the issue here.

 

[byeveryword]

Agree’d this becomes the point. We also don’t deny St Peter and Paul are often mentioned in context with each other. But no-where is St Paul considered Bishop of Rome and certainly not in Catholic Church history. *. There may be some thinking as to this content, it would have to be supported by evidence. In other words show me a statement by an early Church Father that states Paul was Bishop of Rome? I may be wrong but I don’t believe one exists. In Rome together at times yes. Paul couldn’t stay in Rome, he killed Christians by the truck load for Rome. In common sense how could he preach in Rome at this level?

Stating the Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; is not uncommon and not only with Christians, yet the Primacy here is not in question nor has it ever been. But as far the EO St. John Chrysostom on Peter as Bishop this ought to be enough to sum this up in his writtings. I should add in all fairness I never heard this promoted by Orthodox members.

philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm*

The apostles were not considered to be bishops, they were sent out to preach the gospel and to appoint bishops in those regions where the gospel was received. St. Clement, bishop of Rome in his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians makes this clear:

*Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church.
The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” *

newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

 

[Hesychios]

yes, actually there is such a thing… It is a view that every Bishop is a successor to St. Peter. From ByzCath.org on the matter

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/347840/Petrine%20Views

That’s not the opinion of Byzcath.org (as if it matters).

That’s Marduk blowing smoke.

 

[hazcompat]

Saint Ignatius Epistle to the Romans

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy,819 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, *
abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

Hoe do you define presides?

peace

newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm*

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

That’s not the opinion of Byzcath.org (as if it matters).

That’s Marduk blowing smoke.

I would like for you to state flat out right now that such views as I expressed to be the Low Petrine view exists nowhere in the Eastern Orthodox communion. The fact is, you yourself have expressed these peculiar and novel views in the past.

You are yourself “blowing smoke” if you deny it.

Blessings,
Marduk