Catholicism:Orthodox vs Roman (reject, Kingdom, tradition, beliefs, doctrine)

[Montalban]

My fellow Orthodox Christians, a number of my Catholic friends have suggested that I am in the wrong religion - based on the belief that I've got it all wrong over the issue of the Papacy.

I was encouraged to read a site which supposes that the Early Church Fathers (many of them easterners) always acknowledged Papal Supremacy.

Anyway I would like to know if anyone has had similar suggestions. I will let you know that I was surprised how misrepresentative these quotes are.

One site is particularly bad at this.
http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebe...patriarchs.htm

Can there be any genuine dialogue between the faiths when such people are permitted to make such allegations, and Orthodox seemingly forbidden to respond?

[Victor]

I will let you know that I was surprised how misrepresentative these quotes are.

Please explain. I am catholic but I admit I am still learning about our differences.

~Victor

[James the Persian]

Victor,

You won't get much of an answer from Montalban as he no longer posts here. I'm guessing that he's likely to have thought that the usual RC use of Patristic quotes for this purpose is rather akin to Protestant Biblical proof-texting - rip a couple of sentences out of context and you can twist them to mean whatever you like. That's certainly been my experience in the main, though not always, and I've usually found that those RCs who use such arguments are familiar only with the proof-texting of some modern apologetical writer, having never read the original Patristic text. I can't be absolutely certain this is what he's talking about but I' willing to bet on it - he'd be far from the first Orthodox Christian I'vecome across to have such an experience.

James

[Spudly]

It is unfortunate to see that he has stopped his postings as I have read many of his remarks on this site and see some hostility toward him from some individuals. As a convert to Orthodoxy, I am familiar with the proof-texting of more conservative protestantism and its abuse of the text. As a college professor of Old and New Testament Studies at a Protestant college I am familiar with the ignorance that many "believers" have when it actually comes to really reading text. As a convert and an academic I can say that I spent a great deal of time reading up on Orthodox beliefs and practices as they related to my more familiar Western ways- especially that of Catholicism- but by no means do I consider myself and expert nor do I have all the knowledge necesarry to answer the question originally proposed with absolute accuracy. What I can say is this, early in the Church's history, in one of the first ecumenical councils, it was agreed that of the seven patriarchs Rome would have Primacy. This was understood as being the first among equals- as a big brother of the family- but not supreamacy. One of the major problems seems to have developed after the fall of the Western Roman Empire as the Roman Catholic Church also had to step up as a political entity as well as a religious one. The lack of a political power in the fifth century led the western church to form a more powerful structure that would protect itself in the absence of a political leader who could protect them. The east was still surviving as a part of a somewhat powerful part of an Empire. This difference in politics is what I think lead to the difference between the Western and Eastern understanding of Primacy and the ultimately to the Schism which was, in part, due to the Western demand for supreamacy (which the east could not submit to considering its role in the eastern empire and being subject to an emperor.)

[Victor]

OK thanks guys. I am reading a very thick book on Church History and much of what you said sounds familiar. As soon as I gather more info I will be back to post my findings. Trying to read from both sides.

~Victor

PS-So far I can see how Orthodox can come to the conclusion that the supremacy was never there. (It's come down to the Catholic view of doctrinal developement in which Orthodox can't deny because things like the "two natures" was not fully understood until much later) But in the few dialogues I have had with James and a friend of mine. You both have given me very few quotes from early church fathers denying Peters role. St. Ambrose's quote is actually the strongest quote I have read to date. But on the counter side (RCC) there are just way too many quotes for me to just ignore. I posted these in aboutcatholics James, you may have missed them or just ignored them. They deffinately show supremancy and not just honor. Some date way before all the politics even begun. I'm just sharing what I have found so far. Not trying to prove or disprove as of yet. I will return to post.

~Victor

[James the Persian]

Firstly, Spudly, nice to see another Orthodox Christian here - we're rather thin on the ground. Just one minor correction, though, there were only five Patriarchs, not seven as you wrote. I realise that's just a minor detail, though, and your post is completely right elsewhere. I'm happy to see that you, like me, investigated RC claims about the early Church and rejected them. Now to Victor's post.

Originally Posted by Victor

OK thanks guys. I am reading a very thick book on Church History and much of what you said sounds familiar. As soon as I gather more info I will be back to post my findings. Trying to read from both sides.

~Victor

PS-So far I can see how Orthodox can come to the conclusion that the supremacy was never there. (It's come down to the Catholic view of doctrinal developement in which Orthodox can't deny because things like the "two natures" was not fully understood until much later) But in the few dialogues I have had with James and a friend of mine. You both have given me very few quotes from early church fathers denying Peters role. St. Ambrose's quote is actually the strongest quote I have read to date. But on the counter side (RCC) there are just way too many quotes for me to just ignore. I posted these in aboutcatholics James, you may have missed them or just ignored them. They deffinately show supremancy and not just honor. Some date way before all the politics even begun. I'm just sharing what I have found so far. Not trying to prove or disprove as of yet. I will return to post.

~Victor

Actually, Victor, we can and do deny doctrinal development in the way that you RCs have it. We don't deny at all that the understanding of an already revealed doctrine can be improved or that better language can be used to describe it. This is the sort of 'doctrinal development' you were hinting at with reference to the Two Natures. If that was as far as Rome went it would be fine, but your idea of doctrinal development allows you to find wholly new doctrines without prior precedent such as the filioque, purgatory and the Immaculate Conception. That, to us is invention, not legitimate development of theological language as was the case with Chalcedonian Christology.

The reason I, and probably your friend, don't tend to come up with many Patristic quotes is basically because I don't want to get into a proof-texting war. That was bad enough when I was a Protestant and I feel that we can end up regarding the Fathers' writings in much the same way as sola scripturalists view the Bible, which is also wrong. Suffice it to say that not only do such quotes exist (a lot of them) but a lot of what RC apologists tend to use does not mean what they say it does. For instance, Petrine See (or See of Peter) is often pulled out with an 'ahah, that's Rome' sort of attitude or they jump on the term 'prince of Apostles' for Peter. Both of these are fallacious arguments. See of Peter does not necessarily mean Rome (though it might), as an example St. Gregory the Great used the term to cover all 3 Petrine Sees and other Fathers use it as a synonym for the episcopate. Prince of the Apostles is clutching at straws to an even greater extent. To my knowledge, Peter, Paul and James at least have all been referred to using this term by different Fathers. This is the problem with proof-texting the Fathers (or any writing), you can pull a few sentences out and make them mean whatever you like, especially if your audience hasn't read the document the extract comes from.

One thing that would throw more light on the issues would be to look at canons (and these can be quoted pretty safely) but I find that RCs don't like to do this. For instance, most RCs seem to be ignorant of the canon granting the Pentarchy their ranks (including Roman primacy) and I'm not sure whether this is genuine or cultivated. It's also understandable that you might not want to publicise the existence of certain other canons that forbid bishops from interfering , except by invitation, with other Sees than their own, especially as no exception is made for the Pope or any other Patriarch. I would say that it is precisely the combination of Patristic, canonical and historical evidence, coupled with Rome's admitted ability to 'develop' completely new doctrines, that stacks up to provide an almost water-tight case against Papal supremacy. Indeed similar was argued by 19th century RCs prior to the Vatican I decision to 'develop' the infallibility of the Pope. All I can suggest is that you look more to original documents and less to apologetics (from either side) if you wish to see the truth. I was neither Orthodox nor Catholic when I started investigating the history behind these events (I wasn't even a Christian) and had no particular axe to grind. I have no doubt what my reasonably neutral point of view led me to - the Orthodox argument is backed up by history to a great degree, the RC one not really.

James

[Spudly]

Thank you for the correction-

Also, part of the issue seems to be concerning whether or not there is such a thing as Papal Supremacy rather than Papal Primacy. As Orthodox, we do still acknowledge the Primacy of Rome, but not the Supremacy nor its infallibility. I do understand, in part, the claim of infallibility which does (in theory) make sense. If the Pope makes his decisions based on scripture, and the scripture itself is infallible, then the decisions of the Pope must too be infallible. The problem is that the Pope is only human. There was a Catholic Scholar (who for the life of me I cannot remember his name, but will continue to search) who stated that if the Papacy had not claimed Supremacy then the Schism and ultimately the Reformation would have not been an issue and that this false claim has also lead to the claim of infallibility. (I will try to have a name by the end of the week, but I know he was censured.) Only going to show how one mistake in the blatant misinterpretation of Scripture and Tradition had only led to further and more damaging misinterpretations and ultimately in the splintering of the faith.

As for church fathers speaking out against the Primacy of the Pope, I’m sure you will find little if any such argument out there simply because it goes against the decisions made by the councils. But, if I wanted to proof text, as it is so easy to do, and cite bits and pieces of the church Fathers to defend my own opinion rather than actually search for truth, I could- but I won’t. Here lies one of the main issues which will continue to separate all denominations of Christianity- superiority. Each church claiming it has some sort of monopoly on truth and that they only hold the keys to heaven. This argument has existed since the early days of Christianity as the apostles were failing to understand the truth in Christ’s teachings and were too busy bickering about who would sit on the left and right hand of Christ in the Kingdom. Rather than trying to prove one side true or the other side false by citing the Fathers of the Church, why not work toward reconciling the differences that we have and see where we are all a part of the “One holy catholic and apostolic church.” This, of course, is just my opinion.

[Victor]

Actually, Victor, we can and do deny doctrinal development in the way that you RCs have it. We don't deny at all that the understanding of an already revealed doctrine can be improved or that better language can be used to describe it. This is the sort of 'doctrinal development' you were hinting at with reference to the Two Natures. If that was as far as Rome went it would be fine, but your idea of doctrinal development allows you to find wholly new doctrines without prior precedent such as the filioque, purgatory and the Immaculate Conception. That, to us is invention, not legitimate development of theological language as was the case with Chalcedonian Christology.

Doctrinal development does not allow us to manufacture new doctrines. Everything we believe has it's origin in Scripture and Tradition. Doctrinal development has been alive in the RCC for all 2,000 years. Can this be said about the Orthodox Churches? Not at all. Perhaps you can explain this James.

Not trying to be inflammatory here James but I am sincerely trying to understand your position here and so far its becoming clearer to me that you don't fully understand Catholicism. I am reading the full text of fathers and not just quotes to understand the context and looking into Canons and so forth. What are you doing to understand us? Do you even care to understand outside of what your apologists write?

~Victor

PS-Have you read in detail about the Council held by Bishop Dioscurus, Bishop of Alexandria? About the 2 natures? If the Bishop of Rome had no authority then why would over 500 bishops submit to the Bishop of Rome?

[Scott1]

Thank you Spudly for your replies and your charity..... welcome to RF!