Thank you for that perspective. That makes sense.
Thank you again for explaining. You understand that the Pope promulgates a dogma only at the request and on behalf of the Church. You keep asking, “where is the consent?” I think what is missing in your consideration is the fact that the Church has already been involved in the formulation of the dogma. I tried to evince this in my prior posts, but I guess not too well. I wish you had answered forthrightly the question I repeated, but for some reason you have not (i.e., “in the two scenarios given, can you explain where the agreement of the Church is wanting?”). Perhaps a dialectic will be more clear and persuasive. Please respond to each question:
I agree that the development of the papacy was fueled by its response to the secular powers. And, as stated earlier, I admit that the strength and will necessary for the papacy to oppose the encroachment of the secular State upon matters properly belonging to the Church almost naturally transferred to the Pope’s internal relations within the Church (i.e., with his brother bishops). But I don’t agree with the popular theory that the fall of the Western Roman Empire left some kind of political vacuum that the Pope had to fill. I believe the theory was fabricated by Protestant historians as an attempt to diminish the theological basis for the primacy. To wit, “if we can somehow show that the font of papal authority has a merely secular origin, then its claims to being biblically based would be weakened.” But the facts don’t support the theory. The fall of the Western Roman empire is placed at 480 A.D. However:
Agreed, though I personally don’t find anything wrong with the existence of the Vatican State. It can’t be doubted that without the Vatican, the world would not have a moral compass to which even the secular heads of state listens to. Without the Vatican, Christianity would not have a focal voice representing it among the secular powers of the world. In the Middle Ages, despite its excesses, the Vatican proved its value for the Church by preventing secular control of the Church. In modern times, despite the complaints of a few Jews, and the lies of the media, the Vatican State was responsible for saving more Jews by non-military means than any other institution. The necessity of the Vatican has also amply proven itself in its role in the downfall of communism. Who knows what else the future may hold.
I don’t like the notion of “jurisdiction” much either (in fact, I don’t like it at all), which I believe was an invention of the secular State that unfortunately invaded the mentality of the Church. Be that as it may, it cannot be doubted that both the practice and canons of the undivided Church from the first century demonstrate that the bishop of Rome was the final court of appeal for the entire Church. Such a fact would indicate both a greater authority than your local bishop and a universal role that no other bishops possessed. Comments?
St. Paul cannot actually be the founder of the Church in Rome, for in his epistle to the Romans, he admits that someone else had done so. Sts. Peter and Paul both founded the Church of Rome with their blood, based on the ancient Roman aphorism that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. But it was St. Peter who actually (and traditionally) started the episcopal lineage of the See of Rome. St. Paul founded many Churches in the Levant and along the Mediterranean which still exist today, but no Church claims apostolic succession from him. I personally do not understand the rhetorical value of the statement, “St. Paul founded Rome along with St. Peter.”
Can this really be a factor? Why did the bishop of Rome continue to have the primacy even after it was no longer the capital of the empire, and even after the Fall of Rome? I suspect this factor is only a Protestant polemic, adopted by modern Eastern Orthodox polemicists, in an attempt to diminish the theological basis for the primacy of Rome.
Doesn’t this demonstrate that the socio-political status of a See is a late factor introduced by the secular State, and not from the Apostles? The primacy of the Roman See existed long before Canon 28 (or Canon 3 of Constantinople) was even conceived, which demonstrates that the Roman primacy has nothing to do with any secular factors such as Rome being capital of the empire.
Yes. Bishops could appeal to their own Metropolitan or their Patriarch, but not to another Metropolitan or Patriarch. However, there was only one bishop to whom all bishops, both East and West, could appeal – the bishop of Rome.
I can only think of two Fathers in the first millennium who speak unfavorably of papal primacy – St. Cyprian and St. Photius. St. Cyprian is really a weak example because before his disagreement with Pope St. Stephen, he was appealing to the Pope to discipline bishops in Gaul and Spain. So basically you have one example – St. Photius. But even the matter involving Pope St. Nicholas and St. Photius is not without indications of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. The whole conflict was instigated by two incidents supporting the notion of papal primacy – 1) Patriarch St. Photius himself sent letters to the Pope asking for his approval and communion; 2) a group supporting Patriarch St. Ignatios appealed to the Pope to restore him.
While I agree that Peter is “Peter” because of his confession, your interpretation does not take into account two very significant facts:
Do you have any patristic evidence that supports this interpretation? From my understanding, Jesus was ordering Satan to get away from Peter, not calling Peter “Satan.”
I have to disagree just based on the bare facts of the matter. Matt 18:18 does not say anything about “keys.” I do believe that the keys are the possession of the whole Church, but these were given through Peter and Peter alone.
But all the Apostles except John denied Jesus (Mt 26:56). Can you explain why He did not make the same “feed my sheep” speech to all the other Apostles? Also, can you explain the connection between Mt 24:45 (“who then is the faithful and wise servant whom his master has set over the household, to give them their food at the proper time?”) and Jesus’ charge to St. Peter to “feed my sheep?” Is that just a really big coincidence?
Since all the Apostles (except John) denied Jesus, where is this general command to “strengthen each other” contained in Scripture? Why Peter alone? Does not Luke record that Satan will sift all the Apostles? Would it be correct to say that EO must take certain liberties with Scripture in order to support their own interpretations?
We know the reason for their special place of honor. St. James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem. St. John’s special place of honor has always been in relation to his position as the companion of St. Peter. Neither takes away from St. Peter’s unique role as coryphaeus of the Apostles, does it.
Did Christ establish the principle of Apostolic Succession? If St. Peter was the coryphaeus of the Apostles, based on the principle of Apostolic Succession, why would not the body of bishops today or in any age also have their own coryphaeus? Apostolic Canon 34/35 hits this home rather clearly and forcefully.
I need some clarification on this. What do you mean by “universally?” The word has several connotations, such as, “all the time in a given period,” “everywhere in a given period,” “consistently in the history of the Church,” etc., etc. Not knowing exactly what you mean, I can only generally respond that one should not expect papal primacy to be so evident in history. That is because it is not intended to be exercised in such wise so as to micromanage the Church. If you think that is what primacy means (whether on a metropolical, patriarchal, or universal level), then there should be no opposition to papal primacy because that is not what it means.
OK. I guess my question was more geared towards which side would be regarded as orthodox. Catholics believe God’s special protection for the Church (i.e., infallibility) extends to her head bishop in a special way during those times when the Church as a whole is in crisis on a matter of Faith. It is a supernatural aid for the Church. Can you, as a simple Christian (not Orthodox or Catholic) admit to such a supernatural aid for the Church? I know you might be inclined to say that such supernatural aid comes in an Ecumenical Council, but remember we’re talking about an instance where a group of bishops opposes another group of bishops, within or without an Ecumenical Council (though it doesn’t matter, let’s say within an Ecumenical Council).mardukm:
Are we assuming this situation takes place in the post-schism Catholic Church? The Church should always try to win back those that are in heterodoxy, but if they refuse, I see no other alternative than to let them go into schism if they choose to (e.g. the Monophysite schism).
The author of that piece seems to adhere to an Absolutist Petrine perspective. Personaly I don’t agree with the first, second or third, insofar as the Pope must act collegially in all matters that affect the universal Church.mardukm:
I don’t disagree that there is evidence of claims to primacy before the fall of the Western Empire, only that these claims grew over time in ways that the East could not accept. The primary difference that concerns me is the claim to universal jurisdiction, which according to the Catholic Encyclopedia includes the following:
(1) it is his to set forth creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of faith shall be made
(2) the pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church.
(3) he can legislate for the whole Church, with or without the assistance of a general council
(4) if he legislates with the aid of a council it is his to convoke it, to preside, to direct its deliberations, to confirm its acts
(5) it is his to nominate to bishoprics, or, here the nomination has been conceded to others, to give confirmation. Further, he alone can translate bishops from one see to another, can accept their resignation, and can, where grave cause exists, sentence to deprivation
I don’t see any evidence for this kind of primacy in the early Church, but I would be happy to listen if you disagree.
I understand your concern. I should point out that caesero-papism is not the same as papo-caesarism. Caesaro-papism is the encroachment of the secular power into ecclesiastical affairs. Papo-caesarism is the ecclesiastical power attempting to control secular affairs, which was prevalent in the late Middle Ages in the Latin Church. Both are wrong. I think it is true that the East was generally more docile and supportive of caesaro-papism, while the West was always and more consistently opposed to it. I should also point out that not just Catholics, but Oriental Orthodox also normally charge the EO with caesero-papism. Many believe that the Chalcedonian Schism was fuelled primarily by political interests. I’ve even met some OO who believe the current Christological accords between Catholics and the Oriental Orthodox in some measure add credence to that ancient OO perception of the matter.
Does opposition to a ruling mean that a judge has no normative inherent authority? I’m sure you agree that the Apostles had authority. Would you say that because Judaizers did in fact exist who opposed the authority of the Apostles, then is it a valid conclusion that the Apostles had no authority at all?mardukm:
I’m not sure I would agree that Rome was a court of final appeal. It’s true that people appealed to Rome, but not that they necessarily accepted it’s decisions if it ruled against them. I would have to research historical examples to expand on this, but this was my impression from the reading I’ve done.
I doubt it. The OT predicted that there will come a time when the Sacrifice will no longer be offered in Jerusalem. That must have influenced the perception of the early Christians towards Jerusalem. Further, Jerusalem was strongly associated with the Judaizing element in early Christianity. It seems logical for Gentile Christians in the early Church to dissociate themselves from the Jerusalem Church for that simple theological reason. As the Church became more cosmopolitan, and less Jewish in character and population, it seems natural that the Jerusalem Church would never have gained any prominence.mardukm:
Again, I do think the secular authority of Rome was one factor among many in its primacy. It retained this primacy, in addition to theological considerations, because it had been established as such for centuries before the fall of the Western Roman Empire and was still one of the most important cities in the Meditteranean world. If theological considerations were the only factor at work, then I would imagine Jerusalem would have been the first see, not Rome, as the place where Christ died and rose, of the Last Supper, of Pentecost where the Church was born, etc.
In point of fact, prior to State interference, the only Sees of major importance in Christianity were Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (Ephesus had some importance, but not as great, proven by the fact that it never gained patriarchal status). Is their Petrine origin a mere coincidence? I see no evidence that the civil status of a city was a factor in its importance for the early Church prior to the marriage of Church and State in the mid-4th century. Interestingly, succession from St. Andrew was not explicitly claimed by Constantinople until the latter 5th century, perhaps occasioned by Pope St. Leo’s rejection of Canon 28, which assigns Constantinople’s ecclesiastical importance to its civil status. It seems the East slowly changed their position, so that when Canon 28 was renewed at the Trullan Synod, mention of Constantinople as the imperial capital was removed.
Sorry I left out an important detail. Bishops in the East could appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople. However, Constantinople only had canonical solicitude (i.e., jurisdiction) for the East, while the bishop of Rome had a recognized canonical solicitude (i.e., jurisdiction) for the entire Church. This universal solicitude was extant even before it was canonically recognized by Sardica in 343 A.D., and there are many evidences for the fact:mardukm:
I’m not sure that bishops were not allowed to appeal to other patriarchs other than Rome, do you have any evidence supporting that?
Yes, he did. And also Pope JP2 of thrice-blessed memory. But many Orthodox don’t seem willing to admit even just the patristic prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos. On the Catholic side, the Absolutist Petrine view needs to be excised, especially the idea that bishops function only because the Pope “lets” them. On the EO side, the Low Petrine view needs to be excised, especially the idea that there is no such thing as a head bishop, or that a head bishop is a merely honorific title. Once these two extremes are rooted out, the Churches can move forward in its discussions regarding ecclesiology.mardukm:
Again I’m not arguing that Rome had no primacy, only that the way it understands its primacy has changed in ways that the Orthodox can’t accept. Didn’t pope Benedict say something about the need for the Church to return to its first millennium understanding of papal primacy as a basis for reunion?