What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[josie_L]

Your timeline is wrong. Vigilius was held in captivity for around two years at the most after the Second Council of Constantinople, not for ten years, and was even held in captivity for at least one year after he had already recanted of his earlier decisions and approved of the Council.

Sorry, Cavaradossi, he was held captive prior to the Second Council of Constantinople as well (Justinian was hoping to secure his condemnation of the Three chapters before the thought of convening a council arose), which would be altogether 10 years (including the time he spent in prison after the council convened and finished), whereupon he was RELEASED once he affirmed the decrees II Constantinople.

Vigilius’ goal was to secure military aid for the city of Rome. Justinian wished to condemn the three chapters, something which Vigilius agreed to do. However, when Justinian convened the Second Council of Constantinople some time in mid 553, Vigilius refused to participate, because Justinian in convening the council had breached an agreement between the two of them. Justinian proceeded to hold the council without Vigilius. Under pressure from the Council, Vigilius, with a small gathering of sixteen other bishops who supported his cause, drafted his document, the First Constitutum in which he defended the persons of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the writings of Theodoret and the Letter of Ibas, and forbade anybody from making a different judgment with the ‘authority of the Apostolic See’.

Vigilius was being held captive during the wars in Rome (he was first arrested on November 22, 545 while saying mass at the church of St. Cecelia in Rome), that is, he was being help captive because he refused to bend to the emperor who he believed was denigrating/usurping his position as head of the Church “You may keep me in captivity, but the blessed Apostle Peter will never be your captive.” Many attempts were made prior to the council to affirm the condemnation of the Three Chapters, and although Vigilius did issue such a condemnation in a document entitled “Judicatum” in April 548, he had trouble convincing the West, therefore, he asked Justinian to withdraw the Judicatum pending a general council on the issue (wherein Justinian was given the promise that Vigilius would persuade the council to condemn the Three Chapters). The role of Vigilius in all this was plain, he was not to be usurped by an emperor, i.e., he had to the duty to preserve the independence of the Church (as well as his position in the Church). This is why he was held in captivity for so long.

Upon receiving this *Constitutum *, Justinian presented to the Council several letters in which Vigilius had privately agreed to condemn the Three Chapters, causing Vigilius to appear duplicitous, sealing Vigilius’ fate. They struck him from the diptychs in the seventh session and in the eighth session made a judgment that the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Three Chapters should all be anathematized, along with those who defended them. Vigilius was then held in captivity (some sources like the ones used for the Catholic Encyclopedia Article on the Second Council of Constantinople seem to indicate that he was sent into exile). On the eighth day of December in the year 533 wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Constantinople, Eutychus, in which he withdrew his First Constitutum. He then wrote a Second Constitutum, some time in February of 554, in which he promulgated the decisions of the council in the West (several sees in the West immediately went into schism upon receiving this Second Constitutum, claiming that Vigilius and the East had abandoned the true faith of Chalcedon). Only in the year 555 (over one year after approving of the Council’s decisions) was Vigilius allowed to return to Rome (but he died on the way home).

Upon the commencement of the Council, Vigilius decried the small representation of bishops from the Latin West, and the fact that Justinian refused to permit him to hold a preliminary synod in Italy, on those grounds he refused to attend the council. It was at this time that Vigilius, of his own authority, issued, Constitutum which reaffirmed Chalcedon, condemned the works but not the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, upheld Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa, condemned five heretical Nestorian propositions, and directed further discussion of the matter to cease. A power play between the emperor and Vigilius ensued, wherein, Vigilius was confined on the island of Proconnesos on a diet of bread and water (including the pope`s staff). Finally, in February of 554 (not 555) did Vigilius ratify the decrees of II Constantinople, and he was released (although he was not sent to Italy right away in substantial part because he was helping Justinian in the administrative planning of his new province, Italy). He died (enroute to Rome) in Sicily on the 7th of June 555.

If they imprisoned/exiled Vigilius because they needed his approval, as you claim, then why did he remain imprisoned for one year after approving of the Council’s decisions? Furthermore, if imprisoning Vigilius is proof that they needed his approval, does that mean that they needed the approval of Nestorius, who was similarly exiled? And why did the council feel free to contradict the pope, who had declared in his First Constitutum that any declaration contrary to his would be nullified by the authority of the Apostolic See? Your interpretation of the Second Council of Constantinople leaves a few questions unanswered.

They (actually Justinian) imprisoned him (less than) one year after approving the conciliar decisions of II Constantinople because he refused to ratify the decisions until February 554. And it is proof that Vigiliuss approval was needed because Justinian himself understood who and what Vigilius stood for (recollect the quotes that I gave you concerning Justinians view) which never was applied to Nestorius (the patriarch of Constantinople). Furthermore, Justinian being emperor and caesaropapism being rampant in the East could have in part played a role in contradicting the pope or rather it was Justinians release of Vigiliuss earlier promise to secure condemnation of the Three Chapters by the council (I mentioned it earlier) that allowed them to move forward. Either way, Justinian kept Vigilius in captivity up until he, Vigilius, confirmed his condemnation of the Three Chapters, this after the Council of Constantinople II had condemned it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Sorry, Cavaradossi, he was held captive prior to the Second Council of Constantinople as well (Justinian was hoping to secure his condemnation of the Three chapters before the thought of convening a council arose), which would be altogether 10 years (including the time he spent in prison after the council convened and finished), whereupon he was RELEASED once he affirmed the decrees II Constantinople.

When you wrote:*case in point, Pope Vigilius’s captivity by Pope Justinian in order to confirm the decrees of Constantinople II, i.e., you do not imprison a pope for 10 years without believing that said pope is crucial to the ratification of conciliar decisions.*you seemed to be implying that his ten year captivity was for the sole purpose of approving the Second Council of Constantinople. But he was only held in Constantinople for around two years after the Council (leaving in 555 and dying on the way home), not ten. The time he was held in captivity before is irrelevant, because you claimed that Justinian had imprisoned him for ten years for the purpose of ratifying the Second Council of Constantinople, which is false.

Upon the commencement of the Council, Vigilius decried the small representation of bishops from the Latin West, and the fact that Justinian refused to permit him to hold a preliminary synod in Italy, on those grounds he refused to attend the council. It was at this time that Vigilius, of his own authority, issued, Constitutum which reaffirmed Chalcedon, condemned the works but not the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, upheld Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa, condemned five heretical Nestorian propositions, and directed further discussion of the matter to cease. A power play between the emperor and Vigilius ensued, wherein, Vigilius was confined on the island of Proconnesos on a diet of bread and water (including the pope`s staff). Finally, in February of 554 (not 555) did Vigilius ratify the decrees of II Constantinople, and he was released (although he was not sent to Italy right away in substantial part because he was helping Justinian in the administrative planning of his new province, Italy). He died (enroute to Rome) in Sicily on the 7th of June 555.

That is not entirely true. He first assented to the council in December of 553, when he wrote his letter to Archbishop Eutychius in which he annulled his First Constitutum (see the Price translation of the Acts and related conciliar documents). February was when he issued his Second Constitutum. If anything, your claim claim that Justinian kept him imprisoned until he composed the Second Constitutum (which was only circulated widely in the West) hurts your case, since it shows that Justinian was not only keeping him prisoner to try and get him to approve of the council, which he did in his letter to Archbishop Eutychius, but he was keeping him as a political pawn, being the most influential man in the former Western Roman Empire.

They (actually Justinian) imprisoned him (less than) one year after approving the conciliar decisions of II Constantinople because he refused to ratify the decisions until February 554. And it is proof that Vigiliuss approval was needed because Justinian himself understood who and what Vigilius stood for (recollect the quotes that I gave you concerning Justinians view) which never was applied to Nestorius (the patriarch of Constantinople). Furthermore, Justinian being emperor and caesaropapism being rampant in the East could have in part played a role in contradicting the pope or rather it was Justinians release of Vigiliuss earlier promise to secure condemnation of the Three Chapters by the council (I mentioned it earlier) that allowed them to move forward. Either way, Justinian kept Vigilius in captivity up until he, Vigilius, confirmed his condemnation of the Three Chapters, this after the Council of Constantinople II had condemned it.

As pointed out above, he approved of the council in December (in a most apologetic and embarrassing letter). Why was he not released when he gave his approval, if your claim that Justinian held him captive to obtain his approval accurate? And why does being held in captivity prove anything in general? Since the Council’s decision went immediately into imperial law, it would have been obligatory for the Emperor to imprison Vigilius anyway, for defending the writings of Theodoret, the letter of Ibas, and the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Your interpretation is highly speculative.

 

[josie_L]

When you wrote:*case in point, Pope Vigilius’s captivity by Pope Justinian in order to confirm the decrees of Constantinople II, i.e., you do not imprison a pope for 10 years without believing that said pope is crucial to the ratification of conciliar decisions.*you seemed to be implying that his ten year captivity was for the sole purpose of approving the Second Council of Constantinople. But he was only held in Constantinople for around two years after the Council (leaving in 555 and dying on the way home), not ten. The time he was held in captivity before is irrelevant, because you claimed that Justinian had imprisoned him for ten years for the purpose of ratifying the Second Council of Constantinople, which is false.

No, I did not mean to imply this, I should have wrote:

“you do not imprison a pope for 10 years to affirm the condemnation of the Three Chapters without believing that said pope is crucial to the ratification of conciliar decisions.”

Justinian obviously needed Vigilius’s condemnation as head of the Church.

That is not entirely true. He first assented to the council in December of 553, when he wrote his letter to Archbishop Eutychius in which he annulled his First Constitutum (see the Price translation of the Acts and related conciliar documents). February was when he issued his Second Constitutum. If anything, your claim claim that Justinian kept him imprisoned until he composed the Second Constitutum (which was only circulated widely in the West) hurts your case, since it shows that Justinian was not only keeping him prisoner to try and get him to approve of the council, which he did in his letter to Archbishop Eutychius, but he was keeping him as a political pawn, being the most influential man in the former Western Roman Empire.

The “first Constitutum” was written after the convening (May 5, 553) of the II Constantinople council, which was May 14, 553 to be exact. It was in February of 554 that he issued his final Judicatum (“the second Constitutum”) ratifying the acts of the Council of Constantinople II and thereupon being released. He was imprisoned less than a year after the council was ratified (sometime in June of 553). Whether Vigilius was the most influential man “in the former Western Roman empire”, Justinian knew him to be the head of the Church (reread his quotes, and take a look at the Hormisdas formula that was signed by hundreds if not thousands of Eastern bishops ending the Acacian schism during his uncle’s reign, emperor Justin I).

As pointed out above, he approved of the council in December (in a most apologetic and embarrassing letter). Why was he not released when he gave his approval, if your claim that Justinian held him captive to obtain his approval accurate? And why does being held in captivity prove anything in general? Since the Council’s decision went immediately into imperial law, it would have been obligatory for the Emperor to imprison Vigilius anyway, for defending the writings of Theodoret, the letter of Ibas, and the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Your interpretation is highly speculative.

I’m confused by your timeline of events, i.e., it was as of February of 554 that Vigilius approved the council, or rather ratified the acts of the council officially. Moreover, the bone of contention between Justinian and the pope throughout his captivity was the tactics used in order to attain his condemnation, i.e., the pope would not allow him to usurp/denigrate the independence of the Church (caesaropapism). Despite these tactics, Justinian knew he needed the pope’s affirmation, hence Vigilius’s captivity for 10 years. He could have done away with the pope entirely or kept him in captivity indefinitely if he wished, without ever asking or receiving his condemnation for the Three Chapters. Your interpretation is highly speculative considering the individuals in question.

 

[josie_L]

The problem here is there is no evidence that any Apostle held a seat at any Church anywhere. They establish a Church, appoint a bishop, and then go somewhere else. Apostles are “super missionaries”. St. Paul, on record, has established more Churches than the other Apostles. Yes he is not linked as being a bishop in any one of them.

St. Peter has sat in council in Jerusalem with the other Apostles years after Antioch was established as a Church.

As noted above, Peter sat in Jerusalem all the while Antioch was a functioning Church. He never sat in Antioch. He established it, but he never sat as the bishop.

First, let us note that the papacy through Peter was instituted by Christ (Scripture), and secondly, that Tradition gives credence to the belief that Peter’s office was held by the bishops of Rome. Add to this, historical evidence, which from all accounts, affirms Peter’s death/martyrdom in Rome during Nero’s time, I think we have a very very strong case of believing what we do. To quote an article, “No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome.” Not to mention the bones that were buried on Vatican hill that were inscribed as belonging to St. Peter and confirmed by Pope Paul VI. As a side note, in Matthew Chapter 5 there is a line that in some ways seems prophetic:

" You are like light for the whole world. ** A city built on a hill cannot be hid**."

And Peter’s bones being buried on a hill would bring about “a city built on a hill [which] cannot be hid.”

 

[josie_L]

Certainly! History proves that Rome has primacy from the earliest days of the Church. But how the primacy was practiced back then is different from the primacy that exists today.

Our understanding of primacy (universal jurisdiction. . . etc.), however is not something made up centuries upon centuries later, it is in fact rooted in scripture, i.e., the office of Peter (and all the prerogatives that ensue) are first and foremost mentioned in the good Book. It is in this manner that history should be interpreted. Moreover, we can see these aspects (of primacy) being displayed throughout the history of the Church in the first millenia, i.e., because its foundation was laid out from the beginning (the primacy back then is not that different from the primacy existing today; the core essentials are still there).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Begging forgiveness for interjecting here, but it seems as if this may be the point on which your premise becomes debatable. Catholic teaching is clear that the Papacy is not a class (of one) standing above all other bishops.

Granted, it is the seeming limitations on the exercise of episcopal authority that create this perception.

Yet to infer that Catholic bishops are in a class below the Pope argues that they are not really bishops at all.

Its possible you may believe that, but I would also venture guess that you would agree that is not consistent with Church teaching and also has some logical flaws when one considers other implications (e.g. Apostolic succession; validity of Councils; etc.). One does not become bishop until one becomes Pope?

Then why do bishops submit to the Pope in many decisions? For example, if a bishop doesn’t want to comply with a request to set-up an EF Mass, the faithful can bypass the bishop into one of the offices of the Pope?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Our understanding of primacy (universal jurisdiction. . . etc.), however is not something made up centuries upon centuries later, it is in fact rooted in scripture, i.e., the office of Peter (and all the prerogatives that ensue) are first and foremost mentioned in the good Book. It is in this manner that history should be interpreted. Moreover, we can see these aspects (of primacy) being displayed throughout the history of the Church in the first millenia, i.e., because its foundation was laid out from the beginning (the primacy back then is not that different from the primacy existing today; the core essentials are still there).

If that is the correct interpretation of scripture, why did no other Patriarch take the side of Rome at the Great Schism?

First, let us note that the papacy through Peter was instituted by Christ (Scripture), and secondly, that Tradition gives credence to the belief that Peter’s office was held by the bishops of Rome. Add to this, historical evidence, which from all accounts, affirms Peter’s death/martyrdom in Rome during Nero’s time, I think we have a very very strong case of believing what we do. To quote an article, “No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome.” Not to mention the bones that were buried on Vatican hill that were inscribed as belonging to St. Peter and confirmed by Pope Paul VI. As a side note, in Matthew Chapter 5 there is a line that in some ways seems prophetic:

" You are like light for the whole world. ** A city built on a hill cannot be hid**."

And Peter’s bones being buried on a hill would bring about “a city built on a hill [which] cannot be hid.”

Where Peter died has nothing to do about the facts surrounding the passing of his authority to anyone. Rome is made holy by the blood of the martyrs there, but that doesn’t make all other Churches subordinate to Rome.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If that is the correct interpretation of scripture, why did no other Patriarch take the side of Rome at the Great Schism?.

Does it make sense, listen, its not that men in disagreement hate those in front of them, its that they love those behind them. This is a give in this world.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPrimacy_of_Simon_Peter&ei=5ZYXUL7DI8rr6wGLtIDoBg&usg=AFQjCNF8dsUG7tY5SdzfVKecmGplqcm03w&sig2=J2ecnkoStiimvv9dEBlyuA

Where Peter died has nothing to do about the facts surrounding the passing of his authority to anyone. Rome is made holy by the blood of the martyrs there, but that doesn’t make all other Churches subordinate to Rome.

Where St Peter died estabished the See of Rome in Rome and is also the reason St Paul has always been honored together with St Peter there, are they not part of the martyrs who perished there, was the Apostle’s holy blood not spilled there?

St Peters succession is etablished by him and continues in Rome, he chose his successors. St Peters authority is God given by Divine Institution and is Biblical.

I have no idea what you are talking about with “subordinate”. You seem to be stuck on this word. Servant of Servants is the correct view as it should be for Constantinople etc. This is how in each parish the Church functions, including yours, the elect serve the laity. There is no confusion in this in history or practice. In fact the elect are not even mentioned in the Mystical Body of Christ. Its the poorest of the poor who are the concern, the sick, persecuted, needy, abused etc. They have been the calling of the Catholic Church since day one and remain so today.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Does it make sense, listen, its not that men in disagreement hate those in front of them, its that they love those behind them. This is a give in this world.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPrimacy_of_Simon_Peter&ei=5ZYXUL7DI8rr6wGLtIDoBg&usg=AFQjCNF8dsUG7tY5SdzfVKecmGplqcm03w&sig2=J2ecnkoStiimvv9dEBlyuA

A really huge accusation here. Can you back it up with evidence that the other Patriarchs were just jealous?

Where St Peter died estabished the See of Rome in Rome and is also the reason St Paul has always been honored together with St Peter there, are they not part of the martyrs who perished there, was the Apostle’s holy blood not spilled there?

This is not true. There was already a bishop in Rome when St. Peter was martyred (St. Linus). Even St. Clement who is listed as a later Pope (3rd after Peter) was consecrated by St. Peter himself as mentioned by Terturllian.

Apostles establish Churches and then appoint the bishop. They do not sit on the episcopal seat themselves. Apostle means “one who is sent”. They are super missionaries, given that the are personal witnesses to Christ’s teaching, passion and resurrection.

St Peters succession is etablished by him and continues in Rome, he chose his successors. St Peters authority is God given by Divine Institution and is Biblical.

Any succession is not in the Bible and thus speculative. And if it is so crucial, why is there no mention of successors in the Bible? Why didn’t John mentioned it since he outlived all the Apostles.

I have no idea what you are talking about with “subordinate”. You seem to be stuck on this word. Servant of Servants is the correct view as it should be for Constantinople etc. This is how in each parish the Church functions, including yours, the elect serve the laity. There is no confusion in this in history or practice. In fact the elect are not even mentioned in the Mystical Body of Christ. Its the poorest of the poor who are the concern, the sick, persecuted, needy, abused etc. They have been the calling of the Catholic Church since day one and remain so today.

The other servant of servants are subordinate to the servant of servant. It is a simple fact. You can get stuck into the titles and reason with it out of your imagination. Or you can just look at the fact at who rules who and who tells who what to do.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Then why do bishops submit to the Pope in many decisions? For example, if a bishop doesn’t want to comply with a request to set-up an EF Mass, the faithful can bypass the bishop into one of the offices of the Pope?

I think I know where you are coming from, but perhaps it is a bad example. The faithful may do so, but that does not mean that Rome will intervene. If Rome understands one thing, it is that obedience is essential to preservation of the established order. If they started routinely overruling bishops, then chaos would ensue (not that it hasn’t to some degree already ).

IMHO this is something the Church has clearly outlined and professed in written teachings, yet the entire structure of the Church and the manner in which it functions and is governed suggests that such is not entirely accurate.

As Eastern Catholics, we can likely think of several instances where Rome formally professes one thing, yet reality proves different.

 

[GaryTaylor]

A really huge accusation here. Can you back it up with evidence that the other Patriarchs were just jealous?.

I never stated jealous you did. Freudian slip on your part I suppose

There was already a bishop in Rome when St. Peter was martyred (St. Linus). Even St. Clement who is listed as a later Pope (3rd after Peter) was consecrated by St. Peter himself as mentioned by Terturllian…

Who disagree’s with this? I understand all this.

Apostles establish Churches and then appoint the bishop. They do not sit on the episcopal seat themselves. Apostle means “one who is sent”. They are super missionaries, given that the are personal witnesses to Christ’s teaching, passion and resurrection…

I agree I never stated they were anything else. However, St Peter did not travel anymore after Rome and he chose his successors as he established the see, and it is documented. That is unless you want to call St Irenaues false? And Terturllian who you also mentioned which is correct.

Any succession is not in the Bible and thus speculative. And if it is so crucial, why is there no mention of successors in the Bible? Why didn’t John mentioned it since he outlived all the Apostles…

Were not a Bible only faith are you saying you are, or is this a lingering aspect you can’t seem to shake? We follow Tradition and Bible, and Irenaues documented this before the Bible was complete in 382 as did Terturllian. It was a fact of life before the official Bible existed from 382 foward.

The other servant of servants are subordinate to the servant of servant. It is a simple fact. You can get stuck into the titles and reason with it out of your imagination. Or you can just look at the fact at who rules who and who tells who what to do.

As you wish, I disagree. Imagination? Perhaps you should advance your reading to comprehend in this area. Start with Platos Republic.

 

[brumano]

If that is the correct interpretation of scripture, why did no other Patriarch take the side of Rome at the Great Schism?

Where Peter died has nothing to do about the facts surrounding the passing of his authority to anyone. Rome is made holy by the blood of the martyrs there, but that doesn’t make all other Churches subordinate to Rome.

If there were you wouldn’t be calling them Patriarchs in your Traditions, you would just be calling them defunct latin surrogates or somesuch. Scripture isn’t always proven out by men’s actions, sometimes not even by those chosen to live them out; but take an honest, unemotional reading of Jn.ch.21 vs.18 and 19 and realize this is the first Patriarch of the whole Church.

 

[brumano]

This thread isn’t about what Eastern Catholics think about the Pope.

The title Pope was first used by the Patriarch of Alexandria, FYI.

Leader of the chorus doesn’t mean the other choir members are subordinate to the leader.

I never said St. Paul is not an Apostle, so I don’t know what your point here is. I am saying that St. Paul is not subordinate to St. Peter unlike the bishops are to the Pope today.

The point was that at that time there was a great deal of apprehension about St. Paul formerly Saul of Tarsus and there was great controversey about his writings, St Peter makes a decision unilaterally about him and his writings. St. Paul himself testifies to his own need to visit the pillars of the church which he did. They were only concerned about him that he was to remember the poor, and he carried that out in his Apostalate. Is that subordination, it seems so, they gave him one order and he obeyed it. The church was still spreading from Jerusalem at this time, St.Peter was already the authority who was looked to as the prime, or the first.

 

[Marybeloved]

So you respond to the precautionary note that proof texting is the wong way to approach this matter with more proof texts. How novel. The reason that more context is not given is that the historical context behind such quotations literally fills volumes and tens of thousands of pages. It is unreasonable that the person trying to make an assertion should ask the sceptic to provide more context, and appealing to the fact that the critic has not supplied context is the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance whereby the lack of contrary evidence is used to support the supposed truth of the affirmative. If it is your wish to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a proposition is true, then you are the one who rightfully must provide the context and analysis, not the sceptic.

Interesting. I would think that if two sides are arguing opposing views on a certain matter and one provides proof that on the face of it proves his side, its he who laims thT the proof presented is not actually proof for what it apparently proves who must give the contrary or refuting evidence. The scenario you presented places you in the cozy seat of aa judge instead of the more accurate place you and other E.O occupy in these debates, of the other party to the suit. Evidence has been presented, those who say it does not prove what it appears to prove should present their own explanation of the facts/evidence. And why should the standard be beyond reasonable doubt? Just how many matters of faith can satisfy such a burden? How about the scriptures divine origin for example? And I wonder where that would leave the actual choice of faith for the believer.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The point was that at that time there was a great deal of apprehension about St. Paul formerly Saul of Tarsus and there was great controversey about his writings, St Peter makes a decision unilaterally about him and his writings. St. Paul himself testifies to his own need to visit the pillars of the church which he did. They were only concerned about him that he was to remember the poor, and he carried that out in his Apostalate. Is that subordination, it seems so, they gave him one order and he obeyed it. The church was still spreading from Jerusalem at this time, St.Peter was already the authority who was looked to as the prime, or the first.

Again, no doubt about that. But the Primacy of Peter is different form the Primacy of the Pope and even of Rome. There is also no conclusive evidence that Peter occupied the episcopate in Rome nor passed any authority to anyone including the Roman Bishop.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Again, no doubt about that. But the Primacy of Peter is different form the Primacy of the Pope and even of Rome. There is also no conclusive evidence that Peter occupied the episcopate in Rome nor passed any authority to anyone including the Roman Bishop.

What about the works of Tertullian and St Irenaues which you acknowledge?

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CFkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2Fa87.htm&ei=jyAZUK1gk7jSAfW9gPgD&usg=AFQjCNFJMoMZMIBBz0O-V96oTXm6uhwRjg&sig2=COt5Rk4hrhEpNo4Y1mEA0w

 

[ConstantineTG]

What about the works of Tertullian and St Irenaues which you acknowledge?

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CFkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2Fa87.htm&ei=jyAZUK1gk7jSAfW9gPgD&usg=AFQjCNFJMoMZMIBBz0O-V96oTXm6uhwRjg&sig2=COt5Rk4hrhEpNo4Y1mEA0w

Have you even read your links? Or do you just google and copy-paste the first one you come across?

It makes a fair bit of assumption. I don’t see how Peter could have Ordained St. Clement as his episcopal successor when Clement didn’t occupy the episcopal chair long after Peter was martyred.

Pope St. Clement became Pope in 92AD. St. Peter was martyred around 67AD.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t see how Peter could have Ordained St. Clement as his episcopal successor when Clement didn’t occupy the episcopal chair long after Peter was martyred.

You are the one who quoted Tertillian to begin with in one of these threads also Ibivanios Bishop of Cyprus concur that St. Peter the apostle ordained St.Clement, the Roman, a Bishop for Rome. This is documented history, the misunderstanding is that many do not realize St Peter for sure chose a few of his immediate successors which is line with the Early Church Fathers as mentioned.

My point is this you stated above “There is also no conclusive evidence that Peter occupied the episcopate in Rome nor passed any authority to anyone including the Roman Bishop” which is you statement. This is incorrect and historical evidence disproves this as in the link above and yes I read the entire link.

You also see in the link what I mentioned above about the documented succession of the Early Church Fathers.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are the one who quoted Tertillian to begin with in one of these threads also Ibivanios Bishop of Cyprus concur that St. Peter the apostle ordained St.Clement, the Roman, a Bishop for Rome. This is documented history, the misunderstanding is that many do not realize St Peter for sure chose a few of his immediate successors which is line with the Early Church Fathers as mentioned.

I’m not contesting that St. Peter ordained St. Clement. I’m doubting he was ordained as a successor to St. Peter’s authority and primacy.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I’m not contesting that St. Peter ordained St. Clement. I’m doubting he was ordained as a successor to St. Peter’s authority and primacy.

CTG - of late, in this and related threads, you seem to be making a strong case against the Papacy in many respects, while also reminding fellow Catholics that rejection of Pastor Aeternus is damnable when it is suggested that the evolution of the Papacy leaves doubt as to its present state.

It has been confusing here on the sidelines.

While we all seek more certainty in these matters intellectually and spiritually, there are some things we on the Catholic side have to take as matters of faith, as you have expressed.

Not being critical or judgmental, but its been challenging of late to understand what you are attempting to assert or conclude. Hoping you might be able to share your current premise, which would well prove useful in this present exchange. Thanks!