Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

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

Rome’s primacy existed before the Council of Nicea. To claim that the Council of Nicea established it has no basis in reality. Are you going to say that prior to that Council, the Archbishop of Alexandria did not ALREADY have the primacy in those regions that is admitted in the Canons? You will not find any Coptic Orthodox admitting to such a ludicrous notion. The Canon of Nicea obviously was only AFFIRMING what was ALREADY in existence.

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.

Yet:
(1) When Chalcedon reaffirmed this Canon, it explained and distinguished that it was only the socio-political prerogatives of Constantinople which was equal to that of Rome on the basis of it being the captial. On the basis of ecclesiastical doctrine, ROME STILL HELD THE PRIMACY. If you pretend that the ecclesiastical primacy was established because Rome was the capital, then she would have lost it when Constantinople became the capital. But Chalcedon fully affirms that Rome STILL HAD THE PRIMACY even after the capital was moved. So it is a historical mistake and ecclesiological error to make primacy depend on socio-political motives.

(2) When the Eastern Council of Trullo reaffirmed this Canon, all mention of hierarchical primacy based on Constantinople being the capital of the empire was removed. Interestingly, other historical records indicate that it was during this time in the 7th century that Constantinople began to appeal to its apostolic establishment from St. Andrew as the reason for its primatial honor in the East.

So the East eventually corrected its error that primacy is based on socio-political motives, and conceded to Rome’s criteria of apostolic establishment. This paved the way for the Pope to accept Constantinople as “second after Rome” in the order of the Pentarchy in 869 A.D. MODERN non-Catholic polemicists have revived the error that primacy was based on socio-political motives, but that is only a polemic argument not based on reality.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nicea325]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

Rome’s primacy existed before the Council of Nicea. To claim that the Council of Nicea established it has no basis in reality. Are you going to say that prior to that Council, the Archbishop of Alexandria did not ALREADY have the primacy in those regions that is admitted in the Canons? You will not find any Coptic Orthodox admitting to such a ludicrous notion. The Canon of Nicea obviously was only AFFIRMING what was ALREADY in existence.

Yet:
(1) When Chalcedon reaffirmed this Canon, it explained and distinguished that it was only the socio-political prerogatives of Constantinople which was equal to that of Rome on the basis of it being the captial. On the basis of ecclesiastical doctrine, ROME STILL HELD THE PRIMACY. If you pretend that the ecclesiastical primacy was established because Rome was the capital, then she would have lost it when Constantinople became the capital. But Chalcedon fully affirms that Rome STILL HAD THE PRIMACY even after the capital was moved. So it is a historical mistake and ecclesiological error to make primacy depend on socio-political motives.

(2) When the Eastern Council of Trullo reaffirmed this Canon, all mention of hierarchical primacy based on Constantinople being the capital of the empire was removed. Interestingly, other historical records indicate that it was during this time in the 7th century that Constantinople began to appeal to its apostolic establishment from St. Andrew as the reason for its primatial honor in the East.

So the East eventually corrected its error that primacy is based on socio-political motives, and conceded to Rome’s criteria of apostolic establishment. This paved the way for the Pope to accept Constantinople as “second after Rome” in the order of the Pentarchy in 869 A.D. MODERN non-Catholic polemicists have revived the error that primacy was based on socio-political motives, but that is only a polemic argument not based on reality.

Blessings,
Marduk

Unfortunately many will still argue to no end. Frankly, I am done discussing this issue. However,you are presenting very good arguments and historical facts.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

Rome’s primacy existed before the Council of Nicea. To claim that the Council of Nicea established it has no basis in reality. Are you going to say that prior to that Council, the Archbishop of Alexandria did not ALREADY have the primacy in those regions that is admitted in the Canons? You will not find any Coptic Orthodox admitting to such a ludicrous notion. The Canon of Nicea obviously was only AFFIRMING what was ALREADY in existence.

I never denied the pre-existence of regional forms of primacy given to large Sees like Alexandria, Rome and Antioch; I simply stated that it was at Nicaea where the idea of regional jurisdiction was formalized in Canon 6.

Yet:
(1) When Chalcedon reaffirmed this Canon, it explained and distinguished that it was only the socio-political prerogatives of Constantinople which was equal to that of Rome on the basis of it being the captial. On the basis of ecclesiastical doctrine, ROME STILL HELD THE PRIMACY. If you pretend that the ecclesiastical primacy was established because Rome was the capital, then she would have lost it when Constantinople became the capital. But Chalcedon fully affirms that Rome STILL HAD THE PRIMACY even after the capital was moved. So it is a historical mistake and ecclesiological error to make primacy depend on socio-political motives.

Canon 28 makes no mention of all of Peter. Why then should we assume that being the See of Peter was such an important part of Rome’s claim to primacy if the Fathers at Chalcedon neglected to mention such a fact? Why too, does Canon 6 of Nicaea neglect to mention any such Petrine-based right to the primacy if it is so central to Rome’s claim?

(2) When the Eastern Council of Trullo reaffirmed this Canon, all mention of hierarchical primacy based on Constantinople being the capital of the empire was removed. Interestingly, other historical records indicate that it was during this time in the 7th century that Constantinople began to appeal to its apostolic establishment from St. Andrew as the reason for its primatial honor in the East.

So the East eventually corrected its error that primacy is based on socio-political motives, and conceded to Rome’s criteria of apostolic establishment. This paved the way for the Pope to accept Constantinople as “second after Rome” in the order of the Pentarchy in 869 A.D. MODERN non-Catholic polemicists have revived the error that primacy was based on socio-political motives, but that is only a polemic argument not based on reality.

Or perhaps they only did that in response to Rome’s appropriation of her founding by Peter as a means to consolidate power (let us not forget that the 8th and 9th centuries are when the Donation of Constantine and the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore show up on the scene). Of course, the Eastern Sees’ responses to Rome’s abuse of her Petrine succession caused problems for Rome, since the Church of Antioch was also founded by Peter. In response to Antioch, then, Rome had to (and continues to) deny that Antioch’s succession from Peter bore any similarity to Rome’s succession from Peter, since that would have undermined Rome’s divine right to rule (this is, of course, a completely ridiculous claim and it shows utter contempt for the Patriarchate of Antioch).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

I never denied the pre-existence of regional forms of primacy given to large Sees like Alexandria, Rome and Antioch; I simply stated that it was at Nicaea where the idea of regional jurisdiction was formalized in Canon 6.

OK. I see what you mean. Thanks for the explanation. Nevertheless, the Primacy of Rome in the Church as a whole, it should be affirmed, existed prior to the Council of Nicea. And his primacy existed not because Rome was the political capital, but because of apostolic establishment.

Canon 28 makes no mention of all of Peter. Why then should we assume that being the See of Peter was such an important part of Rome’s claim to primacy if the Fathers at Chalcedon neglected to mention such a fact? Why too, does Canon 6 of Nicaea neglect to mention any such Petrine-based right to the primacy if it is so central to Rome’s claim?

But why should you expect it to mention Peter? Canon 28, and the prior canon of Constantinople had nothing to do with the Roman See, but was an attempt to establish the place of Constantinople. Whatever the case may be, it is certain that Rome’s primacy was not due to it being the capital according to Canon 28. The Canon does not give the reason for Rome’s primacy despite the capital being moved, only that she still had it. However, it does try to give the reason for Constantinople’s place in the Pentarchy because that was the purpose of the Canon - i.e., according to it being the new capital. This, the bishop or Rome did not accept, true to his duty to preserve the Tradition of the Church. The bishop of Rome finally accepted Constantinople’s claim AFTER it stopped claiming its primacy in the East because it was the capital, instead finally basing it on its apostolic foundation from St. Andrew.

If you want to find the reason for Rome’s primacy, don’t look for it in Canon 28 (which, as stated, has nothing to do with Rome’s primacy, but was rather intended to establish Constantinople’s place in the order of Sees). Rather, look for it in the Acts of the Councils. There you will find the fathers admitting the primatial authority of Rome because of the Petrine headship. I’d also like to point out that the Council of Sardica, in its canons, explicitly affirmed the primacy of Rome, and its status as court of final appeal, BECAUSE it possessed the Petrine primacy. The Council of Sardica was initially intended by the Pope of Rome, Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria, as well as the Emperor to be an Ecumenical Council. Though it never did obtain Ecumenical status because most of the East did not attend since it had become Arian, its canons were nevertheless affirmed by the 4th Ecumenical Council, the Eastern Council of Trullo, and the 7th Ecumenical Council. The 3rd Ecumenical Council also explicitly affirmed the primacy of the bishop of Rome, when it requested that he CONFIRM its decrees.

Or perhaps they only did that in response to Rome’s appropriation of her founding by Peter as a means to consolidate power (let us not forget that the 8th and 9th centuries are when the Donation of Constantine and the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore show up on the scene).

That can’t be true, because the East (by this, I mean the Byzantine East, not the Orientals, who always correctly understood that the status of a primatial See was due to its apostolic establishment) finally started claiming its apostolic establishment in the SEVENTH century, not the 8th or 9th. So it’s a non-sequitur(to say the least) to make something that occurred in the 7th century dependant on a circumstance that occurred after that time. In any case, I am not aware that the papacy has ever utilized those two documents in its relations with the East, but only for the internal relations of the Latin Catholic Church.

Of course, the Eastern Sees’ responses to Rome’s abuse of her Petrine succession

What abuse? How is it an abuse for the protos of the Church to defend the canons and Tradition of the Church? It is the East that was introducing novelties, and it blows my mind that when the Bishop of Rome defends Tradition, he is all of a sudden “abusing” his power.

since the Church of Antioch was also founded by Peter. In response to Antioch, then, Rome had to (and continues to) deny that Antioch’s succession from Peter bore any similarity to Rome’s succession from Peter, since that would have undermined Rome’s divine right to rule (this is, of course, a completely ridiculous claim and it shows utter contempt for the Patriarchate of Antioch).

Huh? It was Pope St. Gregory the Great (a bishop of Rome) who affirmed that the three Petrine Sees (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch) had a collective primacy in the Church. But on the principle of primacy, even this unique grouping itself had a protos - and this was/is the bishop of Rome. No one doubted it in the early Church. It is one of MODERN EO’xy’s errors that many EO deny this fact. The (relatively) recent Ravenna colloquy is a step in the right direction for the EO, reacquiring the High Petrine standard of the early Church (enough of this “mere primacy of honor” aberration).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nicea325]

*Quote:
since the Church of Antioch was also founded by Peter. In response to Antioch, then, Rome had to (and continues to) deny that Antioch’s succession from Peter bore any similarity to Rome’s succession from Peter, since that would have undermined Rome’s divine right to rule (this is, of course, a completely ridiculous claim and it shows utter contempt for the Patriarchate of Antioch). *

Huh? It was Pope St. Gregory the Great (a bishop of Rome) who affirmed that the three Petrine Sees (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch) had a collective primacy in the Church. But on the principle of primacy, even this unique grouping itself had a protos - and this was/is the bishop of Rome. No one doubted it in the early Church. It is one of MODERN EO’xy’s errors that many EO deny this fact. The (relatively) recent Ravenna colloquy is a step in the right direction for the EO, reacquiring the High Petrine standard of the early Church (enough of this “mere primacy of honor” aberration).
Blessings,

Marduk

Exactlyy what I have been saying all along. Many modern Orthodoxs deny the facts of the past no matter what many want to claim. And I have alway said too that “primacy of honor” that the Bishop of Rome only had in the past is hogwash and an aberration.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Marduk

Exactlyy what I have been saying all along. Many modern Orthodoxs deny the facts of the past no matter what many want to claim. And I have alway said too that “primacy of honor” that the Bishop of Rome only had in the past is hogwash and an aberration.

Well, your pontiff expresses that exact sentiment. Go read the OP again. Pope Benedict states precisely what the Orthodox argue (i.e. that the only thing present in early church was a primacy of honor). Sure, his words aren’t infallible, but I would think that they deserves a little more consideration (and not passed off as “hogwash and aberration”).

 

[Nicea325]

Well, your pontiff expresses that exact sentiment. Go read the OP again. Pope Benedict states precisely what the Orthodox argue (i.e. that the only thing present in early church was a primacy of honor). Sure, his words aren’t infallible, but I would think that they deserves a little more consideration (and not passed off as “hogwash and aberration”).

And the pope is not a professional historian on historical matters or is he? It is hogwash to believe the Bishop of Rome only possessed a position of honor,thus it is an aberration. You mean there is absolutely nothing in early church history mentioning or defending Rome’s primacy? Honestly?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

And the pope is not a professional historian on historical matters or is he? It is hogwash to believe the Bishop of Rome only possessed a position of honor,thus it is an aberration. You mean there is absolutely nothing in early church history mentioning or defending Rome’s primacy? Honestly?

Historian? Well, it depends on what you mean by that. For many years, he was a professor of dogmatic theology (where he no doubtably studied ecclesiastical history). If you disagree with him, then so be it. I was simply surprised to hear a faithful Roman Catholic critique the pope’s words as “hogwash”.

No honest person would deny the historical primacy of Rome. What is ridiculous, however, is the notion that the early church had a concept of papal supremacy. Think back to the Council of Chalcedon. Pope St. Leo sent word that the heretic Dioscorus should be refused a seat at the council. Despite his urgings, the other bishops choose to give him a seat. When his request was not fulfilled, the Roman delegates simply returned to their own seats and awaited in silence. Does that sound like papal supremacy to you?

Let me ask you a question : Say Pope Paul III had found some objection to a particular bishop and ordered that he not be given a seat at the Council of Trent. Do you expect that he would have remained silent if the other bishops had ignored his request?

 

[Marcarios]

The First Synod of the Ecclesia was chaired by the Apostles in Jeruslem, James the Brother of the Lord was appointed over the council. Even though Peter is the Head of the Apostles James is appointed because Jeruslem is under his primacy , his bisphoric … The First Ecumenical Council called is called by St Constantine the Roman Emperor , none of the Ecumenical Father’s question this , why doesn’t the Bishop of Rome or his legates whom he sends to the Council ? The Emperor acts for Christ the primacy for calling a council falls to him and is recognized because he is regarded … and even by the Bishop of Rome as the Temporal Head of the Empire and over the calling of Bishops and even their appointments in the Queen of Cities which is named after him …The Emperor and the Councils authority superseded the " supremacy" of the Bishop of Rome due to the fact that it does not fall like the council of Jeruslem to his privy but to the perrogative of the Ecclesia , the whole Ecclesia , whos perrogative being the perrogatives of Christ supersede that of one Bishop or group of Bishops and even the cases of Emperor’s who stray from the Orthodox Faith

The Supremacy of the Pope, this wasn’t understood in the mind of the Early Church Benedict knew this so did the Patriarch of Constaniople , thats why he ( patriarch ) affords him the titles of “Petro’s” as the Early Church understood it , not per se how later theologians of the middle ages interpreted to mean based on their understanding of medievil society around them and their renderings of aristotle

 

[crazzeto]

Well, your pontiff expresses that exact sentiment. Go read the OP again. Pope Benedict states precisely what the Orthodox argue (i.e. that the only thing present in early church was a primacy of honor). Sure, his words aren’t infallible, but I would think that they deserves a little more consideration (and not passed off as “hogwash and aberration”).

Like so many other times when schismatic Christians have cliamed the Pope is supporting their position, no actually that’s not what Cardnal Ratzigar was driving at, and it certainly isn’t what he would support now.

 

[KathleenGee]

I have seen that ongoing when contesting non-Catholics will use the catechism or a saint or pope, but not get the correct context.

There is such a thing as being in the spirit of the Church with the Holy Father.

And I really will pray, if it is correct in my understanding that the other patriarchs be restored with the papacy, but the primacy of Peter will always be there. And the role of the Papacy should always be in the spirit of of the servant of servants. The reunification with the Orthodox can only bring much good, balance, and fullness to the apostolic, universal faith.

 

[byeveryword]

There is a primacy of honor given to the See of Rome for various reasons. Most notably, St.Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, and St.Peter, the apostle to the Jews established the church in Rome and were martyrs in Rome. I think it is significant that in a sense, St.Paul and St.Peter represented a unity between Gentile believers and Jewish believers in their martyrdom, and this is what seems to stand out foremost.

 

[Nicea325]

Historian? Well, it depends on what you mean by that. For many years, he was a professor of dogmatic theology (where he no doubtably studied ecclesiastical history).

Come on,you know exactly what I mean. Is his field strictly church history or theology?

If you disagree with him, then so be it. I was simply surprised to hear a faithful Roman Catholic critique the pope’s words as “hogwash”.

I beg your pardon? When and where did I directly state the pope’s words were hogwash? Go back and read to what I was referring to.Second,the pope like all humans is entitled to his opinion and I in no shape or form need to agree.

No honest person would deny the historical primacy of Rome. What is ridiculous, however, is the notion that the early church had a concept of papal supremacy.

Ridiculous? What is more ridiculous are those who reject history and turn the blind for their novelties. If the Roman Bishop had no primacy or universal jurisdiction over others,then perhaps I should post case after case where eastern bishops took their unsolved matters to…Rome. Care to read them or is it to ridiculous?

Think back to the Council of Chalcedon. Pope St. Leo sent word that the heretic Dioscorus should be refused a seat at the council. Despite his urgings, the other bishops choose to give him a seat. When his request was not fulfilled, the Roman delegates simply returned to their own seats and awaited in silence. Does that sound like papal supremacy to you?

So one sole matter debunks papal primacy? Does that seem like adequate proof to debunk papal primacy? Sorry,you’ll have to go a lot further than that to debunk papal primacy.

Let me ask you a question : Say Pope Paul III had found some objection to a particular bishop and ordered that he not be given a seat at the Council of Trent. Do you expect that he would have remained silent if the other bishops had ignored his request?

Well first tell me why he would not be given a seat?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Like so many other times when schismatic Christians have cliamed the Pope is supporting their position, no actually that’s not what Cardnal Ratzigar was driving at, and it certainly isn’t what he would support now.

Cardinal Ratzinger is quite clear in his meaning. Could you explain how he believes otherwise or perhaps how his words should be interpreted?

 

[KathleenGee]

Byeveryword

We cannot just look to Scripture, we have to look at the ancient practices by those authorized by God to do so. The hierarchical Church was the work of many, many people who gave their calling most serious and thoughtful response. They didn’t have the printing press or modern means of communication. So it took immense work and diligence in developing the ancient church.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Come on,you know exactly what I mean. Is his field strictly church history or theology?

I am not sure the two are in complete isolation. Having an education in dogmatic theology (a doctorate at that) would necessitate an understanding of the historical issues surrounding it.

I beg your pardon? When and where did I directly state the pope’s words were hogwash? Go back and read to what I was referring to.Second,the pope like all humans is entitled to his opinion and I in no shape or form need to agree.

Regardless of whether you directly referred to his words as hogwash, you stated :

And I have alway said too that “primacy of honor” that the Bishop of Rome only had in the past is hogwash and an aberration.

In light of the fact that the pope holds that exact view, you have condemned his words “hogwash”.

Ridiculous? What is more ridiculous are those who reject history and turn the blind for their novelties. If the Roman Bishop had no primacy or universal jurisdiction over others,then perhaps I should post case after case where eastern bishops took their unsolved matters to…Rome. Care to read them or is it to ridiculous

Taking cases to Rome does not imply universal jurisdiction. Have you ever heard of the concept known as arbitration?

So one sole matter debunks papal primacy? Does that seem like adequate proof to debunk papal primacy? Sorry,you’ll have to go a lot further than that to debunk papal primacy.

Firstly, why would I attempt to debunk papal primacy? I have already stated this was a historical reality. I oppose papal supremacy/ultramontanism.

The case at Chalcedon certainly doesn’t lend credibility to your ideas. Care to share any historical examples where your papal supremacy was practiced in the context of early Church affairs.

Well first tell me why he would not be given a seat?

It was a hypothetical question, though, would the reason really matter? Would anyone seriously oppose the pope on this issue (regardless of the reasons behind it)?

 

[crazzeto]

Cardinal Ratzinger is quite clear in his meaning. Could you explain how he believes otherwise or perhaps how his words should be interpreted?

That we should follow the High Petrine view as expounded nicely by Mardukm, this is the view of the first millenium. He is not advocating a position that Bishop of Rome has merely a symbolic place of honor, and certainly not an positon where one would believe that essentially all Bishops are successors of Peter.

 

[KathleenGee]

Markudm has helped me alot. I am studying Orthodoxy in text, and it is very complicated for me. I appreciate the posts here and the Orthodox side as well.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

That we should follow the High Petrine view as expounded nicely by Mardukm, this is the view of the first millenium. He is not advocating a position that Bishop of Rome has merely a symbolic place of honor, and certainly not an positon where one would believe that essentially all Bishops are successors of Peter.

But that is not what your pontiff is expressing. Lets go over his words again:

“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.”

He states quite clearly that Patriarch Athenagoras was expressing the early church view. And no, Athenagoras, did not ascribe to “High Petrine” ecclesiology.

and certainly not an positon where one would believe that essentially all Bishops are successors of Peter

Actually, St. Cyprian expresses that very sentiment :

“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that* the Church is founded upon the bishops**, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers*”

 

[crazzeto]

The problem Mark, is your applying a defective understanding of the primacy of Rome in the first century. God bless,