Orthodox Catholics (No*s) and the Primacy of Peter (Jesus Christ, reject)

[Scott1]

No*s, this is kinda for you.....

Well..... first let me state for the record my high esteem and love for my brothers and sisters of the Eastern Churches. I offer this thread as a bit of "equal time".... I am always refering to the early Church fathers, (as does my friend No*s) in our defense of the Catholic faith.

No*s wrote a wonderful article here for Religious Forums, and it got me thinking.....

How can you quote SOME of what the early Church fathers wrote, but ignore some of the rest? Isn't this the same thing that we critisize our Protestant friends for doing with the Bible?

So, I would like to hear from an Orthodox perspective how to deal with these quotes from the early Church fathers about the Primacy of Peter. I guess I would like to understand how a person can justify not following the examples of the ECF's in this matter. For instance:

Originally Posted by No*s

St. Clement of Rome was a companion of the Apostle Paul, and he later became the bishop of Rome.

Here a quote from Clement is used in the article to explain obedience to the Bishop..... but read this quote that clearly shows where the ultimate authority lies: Rome.

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

Well, St. Ignatius also taught it, and he taught it just as bluntly

Here, Ignatius is quoted in the article...... so what did he think about this subject?

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

Here's a few more of the early Church fathers:
Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen
"[i]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

So...... to borrow a phrase "the riddle for me is solved", I am Roman Catholic.

I am hoping that you can explain (in light of this evidence) why you're not.

Scott

[No*s]

That's a good question, but what a night! I have my other sister coming tonight with my nephew. It's too bad Natalie's sick, because we have to keep my nephew and neice separate.

Your question is quite valid, but as with Protestants quoting verses for Sola Scriptura, there is always the issue of interpretation. Before I get into these Fathers individually, I would like to point out a couple of points from history that, in and of themselves, will color these quotes differently.

The first is that in the ninth century, when St. Photios and Nicholas I had their quarrel, Nicholas sent legates to resolve the issue of succession, as was canonical. However, Nicholas didn't like the result, so he convened his own council to depose Photios and raise Ignatius back to patriarchy. Ignatius declared, for the first time in history, that the bishop of Old Rome had authority over the whole earth.

Constantinople did not respond, because the bishop of Rome had never had this power before, and it was quite uncanonical. The claim was also novel. There was an addition to the Creed, which was also novel. The fact that Rome never had this power, and that the East had never been subject to it, speaks volumes on the interpretation of these passages. If Rome had never enjoyed rule over the whole Church to that date (and that was a key objection in the dispute with Nicholas), then it would also follow that there are alternative explanations of the passages in question.

In another point, not one Ecumenical Council was ever convened by the Bishop of Rome. In fact, in one, the other bishops declared the Pope a heretic, which he promptly accepted. This instance is strong evidence for the collegiality of bishops, and it like the above, suggests alternate interpretations.

Now, on to the texts in question .

[No*s]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Here a quote from Clement is used in the article to explain obedience to the Bishop..... but read this quote that clearly shows where the ultimate authority lies: Rome.

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

The first thing to note is that my tradition dates this differently . We place the writing of the letter around the year 70 AD, and St. Clement wasn't yet Pope. The dating, though, is a separate issue.

Clement, in the letter, doesn't make any distinctions in episcopal authority. He doesn't assert, for instance, that because he represents Rome that his word carries more weight. Rather, he asserts the succession of bishops as a Christ-ordained practice. Rome is hardly the only church in the Early Church to have interfered with the actions of another church, and in this case, it was very good. I believe one of the Ecumenical Councils spoke on this, but I'm going to have to look that up, because I can't remember which, much less the wording.

There are also special historical circumstances to take into consideration. The first is that it was impossible for the bishop of Rome to oversee the whole Church then. Communications weren't exactly easy. So this would call for a strong Petrine Primacy of jurisdiction in contradistinction to a primacy of honor due to being the capitol of the Empire without some odd historical circumstances.

Such circumstances did exist. The city of Corinth was composed of Latin-speaking people. The Corinthians had participated in a rebellion against Rome. As a result, the Romans destroyed the city, and rebuilt and repopulated it with Latin citizens. We have, therefore, an explanation for why Rome would send a letter to calm this extremely troubled province down. It was composed of Latins, and given the history, I can't imagine that the Hellenes in neighboring cities were happy about it either. Greek was quite patriotic. I can't prove that assumption, because I haven't looked into their relations, but it seems reasonable enough. Regardless of that, though, Rome had a special relationship, simply in culture and language with Corinth. Naturally, the Hellenic culture subsumed the Latin, but it was still pretty fresh at that time.

All those details add up to a very different picture. We have a church that is in grave trouble, and a sister church, one very close and dear to her, writes a letter of exhortation to bring them back to the faith. This letter makes no assertion of authority through a Petrine Primacy, but it makes a point, as a key argument, to explain episcopal succession. In fact, the author makes no effort to assert that he is a bishop. He simply claims to speak for his church. That it has a special cultural relationship, has strong grounds to make such an assertion, and that it does not, strongly indicates the Orthodox interpretation that this is one sister church exhorting another.

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Here, Ignatius is quoted in the article...... so what did he think about this subject?

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

The first point I would make is that Orthodoxy doesn't deny that the bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor. What it denies is that this primacy of honor translates into universal jurisdiction. As I asserted in the previous post, Rome had no such power historically. We know this because the other jurisdictions never answered to it, and when it was called for, there was always schism. This passage, and most of the following, may be read in a totally different light, if we do not assume a primacy of jurisdiction, but rather, assume a primacy of honor.

The latter is clearly in place, and the structure maintains itself in Orthodoxy. The Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople has a primacy of honor, but except for certain situations, he may not interfere with the actions of another bishop. Indeed, some Orthodox jurisdictions are refusing him communion in protest, but they will not deny this primacy. This would be far more scandelous if this were not the case.

In the passage in question, St. Ignatius goes into far greater depth for his introduction to the Romans. None of the other letters contain the same flowery language, or ornate introduction. However, he does not assert a universal jurisdiction.

In fact, there is an oppertunity in the text to do so. He asks for Rome's prayers for Ephesus. He doesn't ask for them to guide Syria and aide in the appointment of a new bishop in his place, saying "Remember in your prayers the church in Syria, which has God for its shphard in my place. Jesus Christ alone will be its bishop." Naturally, they received a new bishop . You may assert that the appeal is implicit in the prayer. That would be valid, but it is equally valid for me to say that it is limited to a prayer. There is no indication in the text otherwise.

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Here's a few more of the early Church fathers:
Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? 'Behold, we have left all and have followed you' [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Again, I point out we do not deny Peter or Rome a primacy of honor. This passage works just as well with that understanding as a primacy of jurisdiction, and while we know the latter hasn't come about yet, we know the former has.

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Tertullian
"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Tertullian is a tricky source to use. The quote from Modesty is an example of sarcasm. He is taking the claim to an extreme, and he is belittling the Pope. He didn't like the standards for confession and broke away to join the Montanists. Modesty is a polemic against that very thing. Tertullian is hardly acknowleging a primacy of jurisdiction. Rather, he is taking common ideas, making them what he considers ridiculous, and asserting a counter idea in its place. It is not a good source.

Believe it or not, the quote from Scorpiace can be understood in an Orthodox sense. The Apostle Peter made to the Lord the Great Confession. Christ affirmed "You are Peter, and upon this Rock," (we understand this to be Christ), "I will build my Church." He then says, "I give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what you should loose upon the earth will have been loosed in heaven, and what you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven." Peter's confession is shared by all bishops, and Christ sent out all bishops. They share in Peter's confession, since he was the first.

I cannot deal much past this, because I haven't yet read Scorpiace. Sad? Yes, but it limits my ability to speak on this passage past what I have, and that more an exposition on the Petrine Confession.

Lastly, I will quote from Modesty, and it will illustrate some of the problems with a quote from Tertullian. This book I have read . You will find it a little different than your source (I do not believe you would garble a text like this...you are more honest, and this quote was very garbled).

I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) from what source you usurp this right to "the Church."

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, "Upon this rock will I build My Church," "to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;" or, "Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth shall be bound or loosed in the heavens," you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? "On thee," He says, "will I build My Church;" and, "I will give to thee the keys," not to the Church; and, "Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound," not what they shall have loosed or bound." -- Tertullian Modesty 21.8ff.

I think you can see how tricky that quote is.

However, I need to cut this one off. I'm composing it in Vim, and wc says that I have passed 9500 chars. This means that if I continue, I will find myself surpassing that 10k limit.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

The Letter of Clement to James "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

These are part of the Isodorian Decretils. They are known to be forgeries. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

At the head of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals stand five letters attributed to St. Clement. The first is the letter of Clement to James translated by Rufinus (see III); the second is another letter to James, found in many MSS. of the "Recognitions". The other three are the work of Pseudo-Isidore (See FALSE DECRETALS.) -- Entry "Pope St. Clement I"

False Decretals is a name given to certain apocryphal papal letters contained in a collection of canon laws composed about the middle of the ninth century by an author who uses the pseudonym of Isidore Mercator, in the opening preface to the collection...

The Collection of Isidore falls under three headings:


(1) A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries; they begin with a letter from Aurelius of Carthage requesting Pope Damasus (366-384) to send him the letters of his predecessors in the chair of the Apostles; and this is followed by a reply in which Damasus assures Aurelius that the desired letters were being sent. This correspondence was meant to give an air of truth to the false decretals, and was the work of Isidore. -- entry "False Decretals"

These documents do not date from the third century, nor are they representitive of the era in Christianity in whom we both embrace, unless I am sorely mistaken on what source you are citing. If that is the case, then I must apologize. The Isidorian Decretals, though, are the only Pseudo-Clementia I know of that purport to be an epistle between Clement and James, and conveniently enough, I do not know where I can gain access to them to check. I do know that I have seen those documents dated to the third century by some people, though, which leads me to believe that these are the same documents.

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Origen
"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" ([i]Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248])

As with Tertullian, we must always be careful when quoting those who sided with Heresy, though Origen never broke with the Church. Again, as with Tertullian, context says a lot.

Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone, are here given to all who give the three admonitions to all that have sinned; so that, if they be not heard, they will bind on earth him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican, as such an one has been bound in heaven. But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens," has been specially set before the words, "And what things soever ye shall bind on earth," etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on the earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage, with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens. The better, therefore, is the binder, so much more blessed is he who has been loosed, so that in every part of the heavens his loosing has been accomplished.

Note here two things. First, Origen is tying this to some crazy system foreign to both our Churches, which is hardly surprising given the source. The second thing is that he says "Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone, are here given to all who give the three admonitions to all that have sinned; so that, if they be not heard, they will bind on earth him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican, as such an one has been bound in heaven." Origen, here, spreads the authority given to Peter to all the Apostles and their successors.

Since he does that, he feels it neccessary to give Peter "some element superior to those who thrice admonished." Then he starts dividing what "layers" are judged by whom. I don't think either of us can affirm this system. It's crazy, but then, Origen was hardly a model Christian.

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.' . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

There are two versions of On the Unity of the Church. There is the original, and the souped up version. You quoted the souped up version. The note "1st edition" makes note of this and tries to assert that Cyprian edited this portion for some reason. Another theory makes this the second version, because Cyprian had somehow misrepresented or otherwise messed up on ecclesiastical authority (not likely). There is, of course, the third option, that this version is a gloss. That is the view I hold, and I feel it best explains the differences.

One reason for this is that there is a textual principle that people are more likely to add than to take away. Another is that Cyprian had a long-standing dispute with Pope Stephen over doctrine. It wouldn't make sense for him to write something like that, when he felt he had the right to rebuke the bishop of Rome. A third cause is historical. As I said, the Pope never had universal jurisdiction, and when it was asserted, the Church split. I may, therefore, rightfully claim the reading you quoted represents a later understanding of papal authority...one which doesn't come until after the ninth century.

Here is the "1st edition:"

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed my sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and those soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;" yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity." -- Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, 4.

As you can see, this version is quite different. It supports a collegiality of bishops as found in Orthodoxy.

However, I am running short on space again .

[No*s]

I close, now, with this conclusion and summary. Of the passages you mentioned, there are those that exalt the see of Rome. This is well and good. For almost 900 years there was little trouble with Rome, excepting one Pope condemned a heretic by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The Pope had been a bulwark of Orthodoxy, and he had fought against heresies. Further, it was the seat of Peter, and Peter was preeminent among the Apostles. It became customary, when a grievous dispute arose, to appeal to a neutral party. This was often the Pope, and combined with his staunch history of defending the faith, this is perfectly understandable.

However, a seat of higher honor does not equate to a seat of universal jurisdiction or rule. Those that exalt the Papacy do so blatantly, and clearly. However, they do not establish a universal rule of Rome. None of them succeeded in doing that.

However, there were passages that seemed to indicate that. It is telling that one of these was a member of the Isidorian Decretals and the other a revision of Cyprian. Both of these not only come much later, but reflect a much later understanding of the Papacy. They cannot be used as historical documents to demonstrate the authority of the Papacy.

The third class is the mockery of Tertullian. Tertullian was separating from Rome, so he took the claims, and made them what he considered ludicrous and easy to argue with. Of all the documents you quoted, only Tertullian clearly, and unabashadly, assigns this to the bishop of Rome. He, however, clearly has an acerbic pen and a vendetta against the See. We can call this an exagerration, because we have the fact that Tertullian operated in the Pope's jurisdiction, and thus, was to be subject to him, the Pope had a primacy of honor, and because there is a lack of attestation of the same concept. It is hyperbole and satire, mixed with scathing rebuke.

We further know that none of the other Four Patriarchs was under papal rule when the Schism took place. They had never been under papal rule. In the 9th century, before the Schism, Pope Nicholas demanded Photius and Ignatius come to him, after his legates had already settled the matter (the traditional way). This was unprecedented, and it was sharply turned down. This is also the first time we see a pope claim jurisdiction over the whole Church. Nicholas was also the first pope to include the Filioque, which has always been condemned a heresy by the East. It is interesting to note that the condemnation of the East as "Greeks" (i.e. pagans/heretics) and the inclusion of the Filioque had long been goals of the Germanic leaders, and Nicholas was the first Germanic bishop.

So, I see papal supremacy as a position without a history prior to the 9th century (papal honor, but not supremacy), and I actually see it as an extension of Franksih ambition against the Eastern Roman Empire.

Further the position has been used to introduce innovations into the faith that were not there before, and which are irreconcilable. The Filioque and Anslem's substitutionary atonement are two examples, and they cannot be reconciled with Orthodoxy, because she will not budge on the issues.

It also made the Protestant Reformation inevitable. There will always be schismatics, but when leaders feel they are subjected to a foreign power, they will take steps to stop that. The result is that the leaders naturally supported local leaders to escape a foreign power. Without the support of the princes and kings, the Reformation would never have succeeded, and they supported it to escape a foreign power.

A collegiality of bishops, the traditional way before Nicholas and the Schism after him never caused this problem. As a result, there was never a Reformation, much less a Counter-Reformation. From this religious struggle, we arrive at a society that is apathetic to religion in general. There are too many competing claims to be Christian.

So, to recap my conclusion, I reject the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, because

1). It isn't historical.
2). It has resulted in innovations to the faith.
3). It made the Protestant Reformation inevitable (and from it, religious apathy).
4). It has resulted in schism.

You see now why I chose Orthodoxy . It certainly solved the riddle for me.

[Scott1]

Thanks No*s.... this helps me understand.