Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[GaryTaylor]

And I likewise have no time to do your research for you. Heading out for a 1200 mile drive in about a half hour. If you search for Honorius, Pope Leo II, the Synod of Cyprus 634, St. Maximos or many other related terms, you will find reference to what I’ve written. It’s a matter of historical record what representatives were sent to what synod. And it is a matter of historical record that the deacon sent by Honorius was on side of the monothelites. Peace.

Remember no texting while you drive.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Remember no texting while you drive.

Lol, or posting on this forum, if you have a phone with an internet connection.

 

[Hesychios]

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.

When we read these passages they are instructive to us about saint Peter and his faith. You conflate Peter and the Pope in unnatural (and dangerous) ways. All bishops are successors to Peter and Peter’s Faith, an Orthodox Christian Faith. When such men abandon or pervert the faith of Peter they are no longer Orthodox, no longer bishops of the Orthodox church, no longer Peter.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

The Primacy by the other churches appear at the end of the 1st century…St. Ignatius elevated the Roman community over all the communities using in his epistle a solemn form of address. Twice he says of it that it is the presiding community, which expresses a relationship of superiority and inferiority.

Rome certainly held primacy, but would you care to provide evidence of St. Ignatius professing belief in the supremacy?

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

I assume that by primacy, you mean ‘supremacy’. Would you mind pointing out the particular point of the council where it is implied?

It was not until 440 that Leo the Great more clearly articulated the extension of papal authority as doctrine, promulgating in edicts and in councils his right to exert “the full range of apostolic powers that Jesus had first bestowed on the apostle Peter”.

Examples?

It was at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 that Leo I (through his emissaries) stated that he was “speaking with the voice of Peter”.

Yeah, after the Tome had been studied and discussed (it wasn’t accepted as some sort of ex cathedra statement). These sort of comparisons are quite common when expressing an individual’s Orthodoxy. The Council of Ephesus compared both the pope and St. Cyril to the apostle Paul : ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xiv.html

At this same Council, an attempt at “compromise” was made when the bishop of Constantinople was given a primacy of honour only second to that of the Bishop of Rome, because “Constantinople is the New Rome.” Ironically, Roman papal authorities rejected this language since it did not clearly recognize Rome’s claim to juridical authority over the other churches.

Then why was it included in the canons? Further more, why was the council at Chalcedon in the first place? It is well known that Pope St. Leo desired the council to be held at Rome on a later date, so why were his “mandates” not followed?

Second Council of Lyons

On 29 June (Feast of Peter & Paul patronal feast of Popes), Gregory X celebrated a Mass in St John’s Church, where both sides took part. The council declared that the Roman church possessed “the supreme and full primacy and authority over the universal Catholic Church.” {Wikipedia}

The Orthodox never accepted those definitions simply because the bishops that attending the council (motivated by political means) did not have the power to speak for the entirety of the Church. We do not accept the decisions of your council (which was nearly 200 years after the great schism).

Where isn’t the Church of Rome considered "the supreme and full primacy and authority over the universal Catholic Church.”?

Where is it? I have yet to see a conciliar, pre-schism document that speaks of such a thing.

St. Irenaeus of Lyon’s “Against Heresies” (3:3:2): “With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree… and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”

Just like the supposed St. Maximus quotation, this is also suspicious due to its absence in Greek. Rome has a long history of using fraudulent writings to justify it’s claims, so we should be wary of using its “translations”.

But, for sake of argument, lets assume it is an accurate translation and authentic passage. Rome was renowned for her Orthodoxy, and St. Irenaeus offers practical advice (for his western audience) for those seeking the truth in a time rampant with heresy. He isn’t making some statement about Rome’s infallibility. After all, this is the same St. Irenaeus who rebuked the pope for attempting to exert his beliefs over the Church.

Romes Role as Arbiter

This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches. Rome’s vocation [in the pre-Nicene period] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome

What passage do you have in mind? I don’t read Wikipedia, nor do I trust anything it says. Give me quotes and excerpts from patristics.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

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?

No, but interpreting verses without patristic support [of that interpretation] is not different than what the majority of Protestants take part in. Show me an ECF who interprets that verse to mean what you claim.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Was the Bible forged? “Upon this Rock I will build my chuch” Wasn’t that Christ talking to St Peter?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Here is where I am confused by what you are saying. First of all you say you do not reject the Primacy of Rome. Okay not lets us stop there. Forgvie my ignorance here, but how can you accept the Primacy of Rome, but reject the Primacy of the Roman Pope?

Right. Primacy and supremacy are not synoymous. Primacy implies his status as “first among equals”, not universal jurisdiction over the Church.

Or to put this another way is it true that the Orthodox abandon the Historic View of Roman Primacy, and it Roman Primacy is not the Historic view how did not EXIST how did they abandon something that they claim did not exist?

The Orthodox didn’t abandon anything. The pope was the first among equals, but when he broke communion with us, his primacy passed to the next in line (the Ecumenical Patriarch).

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Was the Bible forged? “Upon this Rock I will build my chuch” Wasn’t that Christ talking to St Peter?

Read ECF interpretations of that verse.

As I posted earlier in this thread, St. Augustine says :

“Wherefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right "to bind and loosen.”

St. Cyprian says :

“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”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Read ECF interpretations of that verse.

As I posted earlier in this thread, St. Augustine says :

“Wherefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right "to bind and loosen.”

Wheres the patristic evidence to support that?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Wheres the patristic evidence to support that?

That is patristic evidence. Here is the entire sermon : missionstclare.com/english/people/jun29o.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

And after His Resurrection the Lord entrusted the Apostle Peter to shepherd His spiritual flock not because, that among the disciples only Peter alone was pre-deserved to shepherd the flock of Christ, but Christ addresses Himself chiefly to Peter because, that Peter was first among the Apostles and as such the representative of the Church; besides which, having turned in this instance to Peter alone, as to the top Apostle, Christ by this confirms the unity of the Church.

Did you read that part FIRST AMONG THE APOSTLES and THE REPRESENTATIVE of THE CHURCH?

Notice thats still the same 2000 years later???

 

[jam070406]

And after His Resurrection the Lord entrusted the Apostle Peter to shepherd His spiritual flock not because, that among the disciples only Peter alone was pre-deserved to shepherd the flock of Christ, but Christ addresses Himself chiefly to Peter because, that Peter was first among the Apostles and as such the representative of the Church; besides which, having turned in this instance to Peter alone, as to the top Apostle, Christ by this confirms the unity of the Church.

Did you read that part FIRST AMONG THE APOSTLES and THE REPRESENTATIVE of THE CHURCH?

Notice thats still the same 2000 years later???

Sounds like the Catholic position to me!

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

And after His Resurrection the Lord entrusted the Apostle Peter to shepherd His spiritual flock not because, that among the disciples only Peter alone was pre-deserved to shepherd the flock of Christ, but Christ addresses Himself chiefly to Peter because, that Peter was first among the Apostles and as such the representative of the Church; besides which, having turned in this instance to Peter alone, as to the top Apostle, Christ by this confirms the unity of the Church.

Did you read that part FIRST AMONG THE APOSTLES and THE REPRESENTATIVE of THE CHURCH?

Notice thats still the same 2000 years later???

I did, and it is completely Orthodox. First among the apostles (i.e. first among equals) and the primate serves as a representative (i.e. a spokesman) the Church.

 

[byeveryword]

And after His Resurrection the Lord entrusted the Apostle Peter to shepherd His spiritual flock not because, that among the disciples only Peter alone was pre-deserved to shepherd the flock of Christ, but Christ addresses Himself chiefly to Peter because, that Peter was first among the Apostles and as such the representative of the Church; besides which, having turned in this instance to Peter alone, as to the top Apostle, Christ by this confirms the unity of the Church.

Did you read that part FIRST AMONG THE APOSTLES and THE REPRESENTATIVE of THE CHURCH?

Notice thats still the same 2000 years later???

Being selective is not honest. St. Augustine also said that the rock (petra) is not Peter (Petras), but the rock (petra) is the Rock that followed the Israelites in the wilderness. The rock is Jesus Christ upon which the church is founded.

With regard to your quotation of St. Augustine, St. Augustine concludes by saying this:

And to shepherd literally the flock of Christ was acquired by all the Apostles and their successors. “Attend yourself to all the flock” – urges the Apostle Paul to church presbyters – “in which the Holy Spirit hath established ye as bishops, to shepherd the Church of the Lord God, acquired by His Blood” (Acts 20:28); and the Apostle Peter to the elders: “Feed among you the flock of Christ, attending to it not by need, but by will and according to God: not for unrighteous profit, but zealously: not as commanding parables, but be an image to the flock. And when is appeared the Prince of pastors, ye will receive unfading crowns of glory” (1 Pet. 5:2-4).

 

[rinnie]

Right. Primacy and supremacy are not synoymous. Primacy implies his status as “first among equals”, not universal jurisdiction over the Church.

The Orthodox didn’t abandon anything. The pope was the first among equals, but when he broke communion with us, his primacy passed to the next in line (the Ecumenical Patriarch).

How could Peter be the first among equals but then be equal. then how is he first? If he has Primacy how can he be equal.

If I have Primacy over another what I say if above. If Peter had the same authority as the others why did God tell Peter to feed the sheep. Who do you believe the sheep were?

Why did GOd pray so that Peters faith would not fail, and then tell him to guard the others.

Again who is this flock he was to lead if not the Apostles?

Amd again how can I be first above many, and yet be Equal to all? Makes no sense at all.

 

[Rawb]

Amd again how can I be first above many, and yet be Equal to all? Makes no sense at all.

It works, but take a moment to think about what you’re saying.

How can God be One, and yet Three? Makes no sense at all.

How can God the Father be the origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit and yet all are equal? Makes no sense at all.

How can Our Lord be both 100% man and yet 100% God? Makes no sense at all.

How can Our Lady be the Mother of God, and yet not precede God? Makes no sense at all.

How can the bread and wine become the Body and Blood and yet still look and taste like bread and wine? Makes no sense at all.

How can a woman give birth to a man, and yet remain a virgin? Makes no sense at all.

How can the Cross, a torture device of humility and shame be our standard and yet the means of the Ultimate Victory? Makes no sense at all.

How can a priest be a sinful man, and yet still absolve us of our sins? Makes no sense at all.

How can…and yet…it does!

 

[antonivs]

It works, but take a moment to think about what you’re saying.

How can God be One, and yet Three? Makes no sense at all.

How can God the Father be the origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit and yet all are equal? Makes no sense at all.

How can Our Lord be both 100% man and yet 100% God? Makes no sense at all.

How can Our Lady be the Mother of God, and yet not precede God? Makes no sense at all.

How can the bread and wine become the Body and Blood and yet still look and taste like bread and wine? Makes no sense at all.

How can a woman give birth to a man, and yet remain a virgin? Makes no sense at all.

How can the Cross, a torture device of humility and shame be our standard and yet the means of the Ultimate Victory? Makes no sense at all.

How can a priest be a sinful man, and yet still absolve us of our sins? Makes no sense at all.

How can…and yet…it does!

Credo quia absurdum! :yup:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

How could Peter be the first among equals but then be equal. then how is he first? If he has Primacy how can he be equal.

The same way the “first among equals” operates in the Orthodox Church today. The Patriarch of Constantinople presides in love and can serve a representative for the Church. If he attends a synod, he is honored above all and functions as a leader. In the event that he attempts to force his decisions on the entire Church, he is rebuked (just as the saints rebuked the pope when/if he made a similar action).

If I have Primacy over another what I say if above. If Peter had the same authority as the others why did God tell Peter to feed the sheep. Who do you believe the sheep were?

Because Peter was the leader among the disciples. St. John Chrysostom says :

“And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band”

Being a leader does not imply ruling over. Aside from the fact that Rome is not the only Petrine See (Antioch is as well), St. Peter never exerts authority over the other apostles.

Amd again how can I be first above many, and yet be Equal to all? Makes no sense at all.

Your pontiff believes the papacy operated in such a way prior to the schism.

 

[jam070406]

The same way the “first among equals” operates in the Orthodox Church today. The Patriarch of Constantinople presides in love and can serve a representative for the Church. If he attends a synod, he is honored above all and functions as a leader. In the event that he attempts to force his decisions on the entire Church, he is rebuked (just as the saints rebuked the pope when/if he made a similar action).

Because Peter was the leader among the disciples. St. John Chrysostom says :

“And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band”

Being a leader does not imply ruling over. Aside from the fact that Rome is not the only Petrine See (Antioch is as well), St. Peter never exerts authority over the other apostles.

Your pontiff believes the papacy operated in such a way prior to the schism.

“It is clear to every one who knows the Gospel that the CARE of the WHOLE CHURCH has been committed to the blessed PETER, CHIEF of the Apostles. For him it is said: [quotes from John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32; and Matt 16:18-19]
. Behold, he receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to him is given the power of binding and loosing; to him the CARE and PRIMACY of the WHOLE CHURCH is committed; and yet he is never called the Universal Apostle. But that most holy man, my fellow-bishop John, wishes to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim, O tempora! O mores!”

“As regards the Church of Constantinople,” he said once more [ix:26], “WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE? Why, both our Most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople, continually acknowledge it.”

Pope Gregory The Great

philvaz.com/apologetics/num7.htm

 

[jnewaz]

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.

Prevalent? I’m not sure.

But from your post I gather that the leader of the Roman Catholic Church has that viewpoint. So if you like this idea, you have at least one person in agreement.