Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[Nicea325]

No one knows who was appointed as St.Peter’s successor, if there was a successor, it is strictly conjecture. Was it Euodius, the first bishop of Antioch, whom St. Peter ordained?
Was it St. Clement of Rome, whom St.Peter ordained as the second, or third bishop of Rome?

I do not think that the spiritual authority Jesus Christ gave to St.Peter, the apostle was transmitted to anyone. His gifting and calling were separate from the gifting and calling of a regional bishop.

Conjecture? You have evidence it is merely conjecture? Second,your premise is false because why would authority cease with Jesus or the Apostles? Does authority cease if the U.S. President dies?

 

[byeveryword]

JL: I don’t know if this is in response to my above post or not. Yes the Church’s history can be and is offend revised. Especially by those who don’t like the Church or the truth. It’s even done with world history.

For the record, I don’t dislike the Roman Catholic church, I like the truth foremost.

 

[byeveryword]

Conjecture? You have evidence it is merely conjecture? Second,your premise is false because why would authority cease with Jesus or the Apostles? Does authority cease if the U.S. President dies?

I was distinguishing between the more universal authority that was given to St.Peter with that of the regional spiritual authority of the local bishops. Was the spiritual authority that Moses gave to Joshua passed unto anyone after Joshua died? No, he was the primary leader in bringing the Israelites into the promised land. St.Peter was the spiritual leader in leading Jewish believers, and also Gentiles secondarily, into the kingdom of heaven. I don’t know of any other spiritual leader, or bishop that had a calling to bring Jewish believers into the kingdom of heaven.

 

[KathleenGee]

Byeveryword,

You pretty much inferred what I thought, that you think the Catholic Church is a false structure, we don’t even know our priests or bishops…which created in me alot more questions.

Look at the truth of St. Peter’s Letters, and that we are not to interpret Sacred Scripture but to adhere to the tradition given us by him and the Apostles only who were witnesses to His Majesty.

 

[manualman]

What, page seven and you guys haven’t achieved a framework for reunification yet?

Very disappointing, you know…

 

[byeveryword]

Byeveryword,

You pretty much inferred what I thought, that you think the Catholic Church is a false structure, we don’t even know our priests or bishops…which created in me alot more questions.

Look at the truth of St. Peter’s Letters, and that we are not to interpret Sacred Scripture but to adhere to the tradition given us by him and the Apostles only who were witnesses to His Majesty.

Don’t infer, you will be a better person.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Gary for your (name removed by moderator)ut on the work of St. Peter in Rome and his appointments.

I always understood him the first bishop of Rome. There is documented history that the succession of Peter was never broken. I grew up Catholic, and always when studying or reflecting on our history taught us, i never had the impression things were being made up or the Church was on some kind of power trip.

Again, the library in the Vatican is testimony to the Church that it is not a fly by night operation, and takes its mission most seriously.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What, page seven and you guys haven’t achieved a framework for reunification yet?

Very disappointing, you know…

I think we’ve made it about as far as our bishops have with their annual filioque debates.
…
…
…
…
…
:slapfight:

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Conjecture? You have evidence it is merely conjecture? Second,your premise is false because why would authority cease with Jesus or the Apostles? Does authority cease if the U.S. President dies?

I was distinguishing between the more universal authority that was given to St.Peter with that of the regional spiritual authority of the local bishops. Was the spiritual authority that Moses gave to Joshua passed unto anyone after Joshua died? No, he was the primary leader in bringing the Israelites into the promised land. St.Peter was the spiritual leader in leading Jewish believers, and also Gentiles secondarily, into the kingdom of heaven. I don’t know of any other spiritual leader, or bishop that had a calling to bring Jewish believers into the kingdom of heaven.

No,you clearly said it is pure conjecture,therefore you believe it to be false. Precisely why I asked you to present evidence? The truth is always defended,thus you believe it to be true. Secondly, the issue here is Jesus & Peter and not Moses and Joshua. There are great differences the powers Jesus bestowed on the 12 as compared to Moses & Joshua.The NT is very clear who Jesus gave a very important role and authority: Peter.

 

[crazzeto]

In his book Principles of Catholic Theology, Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) presents an interesting viewpoint from the position of a Catholic theologian :

“… In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”

During my time in a Catholic seminary, I neither heard this position taught nor did I read anything about it. I understood the concept of doctrinal development, but my Church history professor was quite clear in stating the Orthodox had abandoned the historic view of the Roman primacy. My question is this : how prevalent is this position amongst Catholics (be they scholars, clergy, or even members of the forum)? I only know of one other (a Jesuit historian) who espouses this viewpoint.

It’s wroth noting, your seminary professor was correct in so far as:

Many in the Orthodox churchs hold what is known as a “Low Petraine” view… This is an abaondonment of what was present historically.

 

[byeveryword]

No,you clearly said it is pure conjecture,therefore you believe it to be false. Precisely why I asked you to present evidence? The truth is always defended,thus you believe it to be true. Secondly, the issue here is Jesus & Peter and not Moses and Joshua. There are great differences the powers Jesus bestowed on the 12 as compared to Moses & Joshua.The NT is very clear who Jesus gave a very important role and authority: Peter.

I did not use the word pure, as in pure conjecture. A conjecture may in time be proven to be true or false.

con·jec·ture (kn-jkchr)
n.

1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.

 

[KathleenGee]

byeveryword

Gary was very clear and informative to your question. Pray to the Holy Spirit to guide you to the truth about our church. I think some fundamentalists teach we are not Christian and do not follow the words of Scripture.

God bless you!

 

[byeveryword]

byeveryword

Gary was very clear and informative to your question. Pray to the Holy Spirit to guide you to the truth about our church. I think some fundamentalists teach we are not Christian and do not follow the words of Scripture.

God bless you!

There are some fundamentalists who teach that, but I am not one of them.

God bless you, too.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Right the term “Bishop” wouldn’t make a difference when in fact we are talking Apostles. Also its documented fact St Peter chose the first Three Bishops of Rome and its thought the forth also. St Peter is also not only the first Bishop of Rome but also of Antioch. You can read all this its documented in “Heir to the Fisherman” by Pham for starts. And we see this in fact in reality with St. Irenaeus of Lyons and St Ignatius of Antioch and the work which they left behind. There’s no question as to Romes Spiritual Primacy. Its Biblical Historic and documented by the early church fathers. Administrative authority is a completely different issue.

It is very interesting that you would bring up Irenaeus of Lyons, seeing as he recognized Ss. Peter and Paul as co-founders of the Roman See and Linus as the first bishop :

"…*the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the** third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric**.*"

Also while Benedict was writting as Cardinal can’t be viewed as his thinking “today”. There are several points he has elaborated on which he felt were completely out of context. Anyway his views on Communion are not unknown. He just sent two Cardinals to Russia in 2011. Nevertheless the marion dogmas are not the issue. To be able to bring closure by agreeing what the primacy is in fact required of in its tasks as primacy is the issue. “Dominus Iesus” is the doctrine under review. I haven’t read it so I couldn’t speak on it. At any rate nothing Marion was even mentioned.

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.

 

[Nicea325]

I did not use the word pure, as in pure conjecture. A conjecture may in time be proven to be true or false.

con·jec·ture (kn-jkchr)
n.

1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.

Actually you said:

No one knows who was appointed as St.Peter’s successor, if there was a successor, it is strictly conjecture

So it is merely an opinion of yours with no historical basis or evidence. History and Tradition says otherwise.

 

[CopticChristian]

Ive been reading that throughout the time of union between the Churches that Constantinople did recognise that the Pope had universal jurisdiction over their church or all churches…

But the East sought to raise the dignity of the Constantinople See and then Calling it the Ecumenical Patriarch which St Gregory the Great was against,and then Photios getting all Anti Roman and therfore the East growing away from humble submission to the Popes and being subject to him ,and if the Popes really do have the right to supremacy then anything from lack of submission or rivalry could be along the lines of rebellion perhaps…

Lord have mercy i am a sinner

It is my undersanding that there is a heritage, pedigree in the Eastern Church. The most ancient is Constantinople however they admit and concede that Rome had primacy prior to the schism. In effect I believe it would mean that Eastern Orthodoxy could agree with Rome as primary over Constantinople with the understanding that the semantics of “Pope” would be determined through dialogue. In other words whatever primacy means as it regards Constantinople then with acknowledgement primacy would be relinquished by agreement to Rome in the East.

 

[byeveryword]

Actually you said:

No one knows who was appointed as St.Peter’s successor, if there was a successor, it is strictly conjecture

So it is merely an opinion of yours with no historical basis or evidence. History and Tradition says otherwise.

Yes, it is my opinion that the primacy of Peter can not be established as being passed on to anyone. It is also my opinion, that no one else can establish this claim. As other posters have pointed out, the see of Antioch was established by St.Peter, and the see of Rome was established by St. Paul and St. Peter. So, even if we were to assume that the gift and calling of St.Peter was passed onto a particular see/bishop, how would anyone know which see it was?

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, it is my opinion that the primacy of Peter can not be established as being passed on to anyone. It is also my opinion, that no one else can establish this claim. As other posters have pointed out, the see of Antioch was established by St.Peter, and the see of Rome was established by St. Paul and St. Peter. So, even if we were to assume that the gift and calling of St.Peter was passed onto a particular see/bishop, how would anyone know which see it was?

Well unfortunately for you,ancient history by the early church fathers says otherwise. Unless you have proof of another Tradition being taught by the early church and fathers? Claim? No one is making the claim,but only what has been established by Christ.

 

[Hesychios]

Many in the Orthodox churchs hold what is known as a “Low Petraine” view… This is an abaondonment of what was present historically.

There is no “Low Petraine” view.

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

 

[byeveryword]

Well unfortunately for you,ancient history by the early church fathers says otherwise. Unless you have proof of another Tradition being taught by the early church and fathers? Claim? No one is making the claim,but only what has been established by Christ.

Then supply me with the historical evidence that a see, or a bishop received the ministry of St.Peter to bring the gospel to the Jewish people.

Then supply me with the historical evidence that St.Peter **did not **establish the See of Antioch, and that he did not co-establish the See of Rome with St. Paul.