Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[Hesychios]

If i may ask, how was it known the primacy of Rome to be in the first millenium? is it not the same as today?

No.

If you want to know how the primacy of Rome was exercised in the first millennium, you would do well to study how it is exercised today by the Ecumenical Patriarch.

As I have stated before, the Orthodox know how primacy works, it is present and active at all levels of the church.

I did not read anything here that says otherwise. I think that the pope knows that if they can discovery how was in the first millenium, they might discovery that is the same as today. No?

No, this is telescoping history, projecting the present state into the past.

 

[Hesychios]

… we need to know who were the troublemakers against the pope.

I find it interesting how you phrase this. It reveals a deeply held preconceived set of notions.

 

[Hesychios]

Constantinople as being the the See that resides in love, the See that every other Church must be in agreement with, etc. is the the longstanding precedence?

You should at least make the quotes correctly, with attribution and in context.

 

[Hesychios]

The First Council of Constantinople (AD 381) suggested strongly that Roman primacy was already asserted.

No. This is not a case of suggestion.

The Council clearly stated exactly that there was primacy in Rome and that there was primacy in the New Rome.

The problem here is that over time, western Catholics redefined what primacy actually means. As a result the See at Rome violated some very notable of the early Canons of the church, overstepping it’s authority.

This was to happen in the future (after the earliest Councils), probably no one expected how bad it would get at the time.

So now we have Roman Catholics claiming that the modern Supreme Pontificate is exercised in the same way as the bishop of Rome of the early church, and when they cannot support that argument they resort to the old ‘acorn and oak trees’ fall back line of development. You cannot have both, either the Supreme Pontificate exercised these powers or it didn’t, but there are many canons of the church that should have (and could have) been written differently if the Papal claims are in fact genuine.

 

[jam070406]

You should at least make the quotes correctly, with attribution and in context.

I paraphrased from Fathers. But why would it do any good to elaborate? Based upon your other posts you seem to view primacy as an empty slogan that means nothing.

 

[jam070406]

either the Supreme Pontificate exercised these powers or it didn’t,

I’m not even sure what this means. Because there is the reality of how the Papacy works today and then there is the dictator type caricature that many non-Catholics fabricate in their heads.

 

[Hesychios]

I paraphrased from Fathers. But why would it do any good to elaborate? Based upon your other posts you seem to view primacy as an empty slogan that means nothing.

No I don’t.

It is very important. There is always a first.

There is a fist among priests around an altar, a first among the deacons, even a first among the subdeacons and altar servers. Of course we have a first among the bishops in a synod and following the ancient order of things there are the most prestigious of Metropolitans Sees. If assistance or guidance is need there is always a way to turn. And above all we can gather bishops together into great synods and councils.

The Roman Catholic church has crushed primacy at all levels in it’s own church and left only one. Everyone thinks of that office when the discuss primacy, but they forget that even in their own church history it was not always like that.

For instance,the Primate of the USA is the Archbishop of Baltimore. However today it is a totally meaningless position, he is not even the chair of the USCCB. If primacy was actually functioning correctly the holder of that See would automatically head the USCCB, or whatever the synod would be called. He doesn’t even approve the selection of bishops in his church, the Pope of Rome does.

It is the same for Roman Catholic primates in other countries, like Spain and France.

Your church has ignored or set aside many of the early church canons which have laid out how the church is to function. The Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Orthodox still follow these, because it was how the Apostles organized the church and they were already traditional by the time of the First Ecumenical Council.

 

[Hesychios]

I’m not even sure what this means. Because there is the reality of how the Papacy works today and then there is the dictator type caricature that many non-Catholics fabricate in their heads.

I am not discussing caricatures. We can discuss the way the papacy functions precisely as it is today and see that it is not following the ancient canons. It has tried to usurp authority it was never entitled to.

 

[wisdomseeker]

No I don’t.

It is very important. There is always a first.

There is a fist among priests around an altar, a first among the deacons, even a first among the subdeacons and altar servers. Of course we have a first among the bishops in a synod and following the ancient order of things there are the most prestigious of Metropolitans Sees. If assistance or guidance is need there is always a way to turn. And above all we can gather bishops together into great synods and councils.

The Roman Catholic church has crushed primacy at all levels in it’s own church and left only one. Everyone thinks of that office when the discuss primacy, but they forget that even in their own church history it was not always like that.

For instance,the Primate of the USA is the Archbishop of Baltimore. However today it is a totally meaningless position, he is not even the chair of the USCCB. If primacy was actually functioning correctly the holder of that See would automatically head the USCCB, or whatever the synod would be called. He doesn’t even approve the selection of bishops in his church, the Pope of Rome does.

It is the same for Roman Catholic primates in other countries, like Spain and France.

Your church has ignored or set aside many of the early church canons which have laid out how the church is to function. The Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Orthodox still follow these, because it was how the Apostles organized the church and they were already traditional by the time of the First Ecumenical Council.

The way you describe the primacy it seem non existent in your post. you are thinking like protestants who cannot accept submission to the one primacy. If the pope cannot exercise leadership over everyone then there is no primacy at all but just an invisible imaginable primacy.
Protestants justify their existence by creating an invisible church.

 

[Hesychios]

The way you describe the primacy it seem non existent in your post. you are thinking like protestants who cannot accept submission to the one primacy. If the pope cannot exercise leadership over everyone then there is no primacy at all but just an invisible imaginable primacy.
Protestants justify their existence by creating an invisible church.

You are obviously confused about the concept.

I am sorry but I can not explain it any better for you. I would like to help you but if your only reference points are between Roman Catholicism and protestantism you are probably not going to make any progress figuring it out.

The eastern churches have have followed (and still follow) the concept of primacy from the beginning, if you study the early church you will see it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

(a) Later tradition (including Eastern tradition) accorded to Bishop Sylvester of Rome a leading, though indirect, role at Nicaea, and its sixth canon suggests that Roman “custom” is normative an some way for the whole Church;

(b) Theodosius’ decree of 380 views the Petrine faith of Rome as similarly normative, and we find no widespread objection to this from the Eastern Bishops at the time;

(c) the admittedly small part played by the papacy in Constantinople I could quite well be explained by the fact that it was not at the time seen as a convocation representing the entire Church, on a par with Nicaea; and finally

(d) at the first two Ecumenical Councils of which we have ample documentation - Ephesus and Chalcedon - we find a real authority being exerted by Rome and accepted by most of the Eastern Bishops. In view of the obvious conservatism of all Christian groups at this time - that is, the vehement claims of all parties to be resisting innovation and remaining faithful to the original revelation - the burden of proof would seem to lie very much with the historian who wishes to maintain that the idea of papal jurisdiction over the whole Church, recognized so widely by the fifth-century conciliar Fathers, was a novelty which would have been repudiated by their predecessors at Nicaea and Constantinople. Such a historian, we submit, would find it very difficult to discharge this burden of proof successfully. [Rev. Brian Harrison]

To answer the “why” of the early councils…heresy.

In the records of the great Councils of the fifth century, we can see the Bishops of Rome coming to assume explicitly the dominant position which their successors have continued to exercise ever since in those Councils recognized by the Catholic Church as “Ecumenical.” That Roman primacy of jurisdiction was widely accepted in the East at this time is clear from the negotiations before and during the Council of Ephesus. Cyril of Alexandria appeals to Celestine of Rome to deal with Nestorius in Constantinople; and Celestine replies, delegating Cyril to excommunicate Nestorius if he fails to recant within ten days, equating his own judgment with “the divine sentence of our Christ,” and stating that he has written in similar terms to four other major Bishops. 1 In the ensuing Council of Ephesus, we find that Cyril presides in the place of Celestine, 2 and that the whole Council accepts as “suitable” 3 and worthy of confirmation by all, the words of the Roman legate Philip, in presenting for conciliar approval (not debate) Celestine’s prior condemnation of Nestorius

How the East has come to view the Primacy today has little to do with the obvious authority given through all the early councils. To view what the Patriarchs have to state today would mean exactly what to Rome?

“The Council clearly stated exactly that there was primacy in Rome and that there was primacy in the New Rome.” Where is this stated?

 

[copperblade]

Even if you assume the pope always had universal jurisdiction, it seems that at least historically the councils were above the pope. In the Catholic Church today, it looks like the Pope is above all. That is the most sense I can make between primacy and supremacy.

 

[jam070406]

You should at least make the quotes correctly, with attribution and in context.

“Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,” etc., cannot be set aside; this, which is said, is proved by the results; for in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved without spot… In which (See) is set the perfect and true solidity of the Christian religion.”(from the “Formula of Pope Hormisdas”, AD 519, )

 

[jam070406]

Even if you assume the pope always had universal jurisdiction, it seems that at least historically the councils were above the pope. In the Catholic Church today, it looks like the Pope is above all. That is the most sense I can make between primacy and supremacy.

St. Maximus the Confessor, of Constantinople, AD 650,

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world. "(Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess pp 354f)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

“Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,” etc., cannot be set aside; this, which is said, is proved by the results; for in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved without spot… In which (See) is set the perfect and true solidity of the Christian religion.”(from the “Formula of Pope Hormisdas”, AD 519, )

Your commentary carries with it much weight and historical accuracy; Since apostolic times to today there is only one apostolic see that never fell into heresy which is the see of Peter in the Popes. All other apostolic sees have fallen into heresy in one way or another. Jesus Words hold up to all ages when He built His Church upon Rock = Peter which cannot and does not change.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mark of Ephesus;8186094]Show me a verse from Scripture where Jesus grants St. Peter supremacy,

Matthew 16:17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
**I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **

You can’t get more supremacy from God, when God personally gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, as well as binding and loosing on the whole earth!

You would argue? But Jesus gave this same power to the other apostles? I would answer yes He did, but as a group united to Peter. Their apostolic powers are exercised at the local level while Peter is sent to Rome to exercise his apostolic powers against worldly evil secular powers which the Popes have done since Peter established his see in Rome.

Scripture reveals Jesus giving Peter “Supreme Jurisdiction over His Church” when He addressed Peter three times to feed, tend and “Rule” over His Church before He ascended into heaven until Jesus returns for His bride.

John 21;15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Feed my lambs.” **
16
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Tend my sheep.” **
17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, **"Feed my sheep. **

No one else in all the New Testament is ever given the Supreme command from Jesus personally to have Supreme jurisdiction over His flock on earth except Peter alone, whom Jesus later tells Peter to “follow me”.

Does anyone else out rank Jesus? Can an ECF or Church council override the Words of God?

 

[CopticChristian]

No I don’t.

It is very important. There is always a first.

It is the same for Roman Catholic primates in other countries, like Spain and France.

Your church has ignored or set aside many of the early church canons which have laid out how the church is to function. The Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Orthodox still follow these, because it was how the Apostles organized the church and they were already traditional by the time of the First Ecumenical Council.

I appreciate what you say and what your perspective is. If as you say this is true then it will be for Rome to learn and adapt so as to cause union in some way. I have very little knowlege as to what will cause that. It would appear to me that as the time approaches we will be informed and documents will be issued so that all Oriental, Orthodox, and Catholic Churches united in one Faith, One Baptism, One Lord can profess together the Kingdom.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Matthew 16:17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
**I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **

You can’t get more supremacy from God, when God personally gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, as well as binding and loosing on the whole earth!

You would argue? But Jesus gave this same power to the other apostles? I would answer yes He did, but as a group united to Peter. Their apostolic powers are exercised at the local level while Peter is sent to Rome to exercise his apostolic powers against worldly evil secular powers which the Popes have done since Peter established his see in Rome.

Scripture reveals Jesus giving Peter “Supreme Jurisdiction over His Church” when He addressed Peter three times to feed, tend and “Rule” over His Church before He ascended into heaven until Jesus returns for His bride.

John 21;15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Feed my lambs.” **
16
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Tend my sheep.” **
17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, **"Feed my sheep. **

No one else in all the New Testament is ever given the Supreme command from Jesus personally to have Supreme jurisdiction over His flock on earth except Peter alone, whom Jesus later tells Peter to “follow me”.

Does anyone else out rank Jesus? Can an ECF or Church council override the Words of God?

Job well done. For those whose only intent is to destroy the authority of St Peter over the Church, this won’t probably do any good. Like you said, no man in this earth will have power over Jesus. Jealousy is rampaged everywhere. No man on this earth can overcome the hatreth and jealousy of the so many and yet able to continue his mission unless Jesus is with him.

Only the blind cannot see how the pope suffers the hatreth of so many who wants nothing but to destroy his authority on earth. Like Jesus said to him one time, Peter satan wants you but I have prayed for you…

Jesus paid His taxes and Peter’s taxes. WoW! that is such an honor. Peter the only one to walk on water. Peter was the chosen one from the beginning…Peter was a leader in his boat already…I can understand why so many hate this office. the devil would will not rest trying to destroy this office. 2000 yrs later still there. I think people have a lot to repent for the persecution on the pope.

 

[byeveryword]

I honor your acknowledgement of early apostolic tradition. I suppose we could look at many organizations in time and want to go back to the good old days. Things change and in a good way. I suggest you look at this:

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/1048/Development_of_Doctrine_Vincent_of_Lerins.html

found at the above website. There is more. The Church, the Body of Christ was an infant that grew. Lerins makes the point that growth is maturity and while things may have been performed differently in Apostolic times, the essence has not changed only the manner. It does not take away from what it is.

Thank you for your clarification.

I can accept the concept that change in the manner in which offices within the church are chosen and ordained is legitimate. However, the words of St.Clement, Bishop of Rome on this subject still reverberate in my heart as to whether things might be different if the manner had not been changed.

 

[CopticChristian]

I can accept the concept that change in the manner in which offices within the church are chosen and ordained is legitimate. However, the words of St.Clement, Bishop of Rome on this subject still reverberate in my heart as to whether things might be different if the manner had not been changed.

Acceptance is the beginning of understanding and understanding is the beginning change. Change is what it is and does not have to be liked. We are to love the work of God and what He does with His Church and marvel at the Splendor and Glory of His work not necessarily those in it.

If our God can order the Universe certainly He can order His Church and grow it as He sees fit. If our God is not Lord of History then He cannot be Lord at all. Israel in the Old Covenant was never perfect yet perfected in the wandering and suffering until the time was right to call Jew and Gentile to the New Coventant. The fullness of time. The Church, the new Israel of God is no different sojourning with bickering, suffering, and ordered by the King, as it is His Kingdom.