Orthodox Catholics (No*s) and the Primacy of Peter

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:

No*s said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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
"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

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 .

SOGFPP said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

SOGFPP said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

SOGFPP said:

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]).

Click to expand...

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.

SOGFPP said:

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]).

Click to expand...

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.

SOGFPP said:

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]).

Click to expand...

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.

SOGFPP said:

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" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248])

Click to expand...

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.

SOGFPP said:

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]).

Click to expand...

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 .

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.

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

Ok..... now that I've had a little while to read and digest your posts, let me make a few comments:

I must say that I'm quite impressed with the information you presented..... gives me a great deal to research and think about.

No*s said:

source (I do not believe you would garble a text like this...you are more honest, and this quote was very garbled).

Click to expand...

These quotes came from Catholic Answers www.catholic.com..... I am quite horrified to hear that they garbled these (and others?) quotes so badly.

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.

Click to expand...

Got ya... I must admit that my Petrine bias comes more from my personal views than (but not excluding) historical facts. It just makes sense to me to have a leader... one visible source of unity in the Church of God.

Guess I have more reading to do!
Scott

SOGFPP said:

Ok..... now that I've had a little while to read and digest your posts, let me make a few comments:

I must say that I'm quite impressed with the information you presented..... gives me a great deal to research and think about.

Click to expand...

I understand. I can understand how this would take a bit of research .

SOGFPP said:

These quotes came from Catholic Answers www.catholic.com..... I am quite horrified to hear that they garbled these (and others?) quotes so badly.

Click to expand...

The one that shocked me the most was the appeal to the Isidorian Decretals. It's a known fraud and has been for a long time. Cyprian is more understandable, because I can understand that someone would honestly think he released two versions (I don't, obviously).

I'm glad to know where they came from, though, because it most certainly is a blot on the source .

SOGFPP said:

Got ya... I must admit that my Petrine bias comes more from my personal views than (but not excluding) historical facts. It just makes sense to me to have a leader... one visible source of unity in the Church of God.

Click to expand...

I can understand that. I've always had a touch of anarchist, so I have a bit of personal bias towards decentralization .

There are a couple of weaknesses here. First, the Church can be rapidly changed by one man. If this man happens to be a heretic (according to the doctrines of the RCC), then the dogma of Roman Catholicism may be changed to it, or to allow it, in a single generation.

It also really doesn't spawn unity. He becomes a foreign power, and as I said, that led to the Reformation IMO. He also becomes a figurehead of sorts. People are in union with the Church if they are in union with him. I've read about some of the controversies where leaders of the RCC have been calling for changes in standards on everything from homosexuality in the Church to democratic government to more abstract dogmas such as the Virgin Birth. These people are united to the RCC...but their heart isn't with it.

In Orthodoxy's decentralization, a priest that supports any of these without his bishop's approval will be firmly chastised. If the bishop allows it, or supports it, then entire communities will begin to refuse him communion. It's almost impossible to change dogmas in this scenario. The bulk of the Orthodox world refuses communion to the Ecumenical Patriarch, simply because of his relations with the Pope. Imagine how people would react to anything else.

Kenneth

D'oh. I am going to have to read this 3 times to understand it all! Could you make a version of this called Orthodox Catholics and the Primacy of Peter For dummies? LOl. J/k, very interesting post. I really will have to read it 3 times and another with my interpretor alongside.

Hehe. I hope you enjoy it .

I quite like this thread, No*s; very informative! Thank you SOGFPP, for bringing it up, and thank you No*s, for posting the information. I'm sure many of us got quite a bit cleared up from this.

Frubals for the both of you! :woohoo:


P.S. This thread reminded me of something. I've been playing Medieval: Total War, as the Egyptians (Islamic). After encroaching on Catholic territory (while fighting the Orthodox Byzantines), the Pope declared a mass Crusade against the Egyptians (I was the last Muslim country not swallowed by the Crusades, partly in thanks to many Jihads). I had no choice but to assassinate the Pope, and take over the Papal States, afterwards setting up a puppet Pope (although much of the former administration escaped). lol

Edit: Just realized this might be my last post. I'm leaving for Ottawa in 2.25 hours.

Druidus said:

I quite like this thread, No*s; very informative! Thank you SOGFPP, for bringing it up, and thank you No*s, for posting the information. I'm sure many of us got quite a bit cleared up from this.

Frubals for the both of you! :woohoo:


P.S. This thread reminded me of something. I've been playing Medieval: Total War, as the Egyptians (Islamic). After encroaching on Catholic territory (while fighting the Orthodox Byzantines), the Pope declared a mass Crusade against the Egyptians (I was the last Muslim country not swallowed by the Crusades, partly in thanks to many Jihads). I had no choice but to assassinate the Pope, and take over the Papal States, afterwards setting up a puppet Pope (although much of the former administration escaped). lol

Edit: Just realized this might be my last post. I'm leaving for Ottawa in 2.25 hours.

Click to expand...

Then I hope and pray the trip goes well. I'm glad the thread has been informative .

Hiya No*s!

Ok..... time for some more stuff!

Again, I really enjoyed your insight into the ECF's.... a real eye opener.... but I am a little bit confused about the conclusions you came to.

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.

Click to expand...

Now, number one.... that we'll have to agree to disagree on.... I would like to hear your thoughts about the goings on at Chalcedon in 451..... specifically how you deal with Canon 28 as it relates to your views on the subject.

#2.... innovations? Like the Alexandrian "innovation" of Theotokos? Wasn't Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople at the time of his downfall?

What about the aforementioned Canon 28? Was Pope Leo correct in rejecting this innovation due to the fact that Alexandria (founded by St. Mark) was rightly second in the Church as the ancient custom dictated?

What about the Patriarch accepting Emperor Zeno's Henoticon (482) which seemed to disavow the Chalcedonian definition regarding Christ..... a position later abandoned after pressure from Rome.

The Monothelete controversy?

#3 is your opinion..... and quite a leap, if I may say so.

#4 Well...... the Eastern Schism had as much to do with politics as it did theology.... I would say that it's a hard sell to put the Schism as a result of the Primacy issue.... it was so much more than just that.

No*s said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well....my historical research shows your account to be a bit off. Ignatius was deposed by Emperor Michael III and replaced by Photius....much to the dismay of Nicholas, who even with his troubles with Ignatius, was horrified at the apparent irregularities of his disposition. Nicholas sent legates to Constantinople who decided in favor of Photius..... but when Photius indicated that he did not recognize the authority of the Pope to make such a decision.... Nicholas promptly said "kiss my fanny" (ok, I'm guessing ) and refused to then reconize Photius as Partiarch.
Basil the Macedonian took the throne in 867... removed Photius, and restored Ignatius.... a new Pope (Hadrian) sought a reconciliation and send delegates to a council at Constantinople in 869..... to no avail.
Then Ignatius died.... Basil reappointed Photius.... who then sought to immediately repair relations with Rome. A council was held at Constantinople in 879 that annulled the acts of 869 and recognized the perfect orthodoxy of Rome.

You then have to look at 1024 when Emperor Basil and Patriarch Eustathius proposed a formula for the primacy of Rome, but left Constantinople self-sufficient and autonomous...... to which the Pope originally agreed!.... but later backed away from.

Humbert and his pal Pope Gregory VII and the confusion and comedy of errors that July 16, 1054 is known for also continued to further the rift.... but there was STILL no schism..... yet.

I would have to say that it was the Fourth Crusade (1202-04) and the destruction of Constantinople was the final sin (to include the sins of both our Rites) that made the Schism a reality.

Peace my friend,
Scott

I'll probably put up a response tonight. I don't have time today, and I have some things tonight. I think you'll find it most of it still fits together consistently .

SOGFPP said:

Hiya No*s!

Ok..... time for some more stuff!

Again, I really enjoyed your insight into the ECF's.... a real eye opener.... but I am a little bit confused about the conclusions you came to.

Click to expand...

That's perfectly understandable .

SOGFPP said:

Now, number one.... that we'll have to agree to disagree on.... I would like to hear your thoughts about the goings on at Chalcedon in 451..... specifically how you deal with Canon 28 as it relates to your views on the subject.

Click to expand...

Canon 28 sets up Constantinople's jurisdicton "like" Rome's. I simply look at it this way: It set up a jurisdiction. Constantinople took an authority in the East like Rome had in the west, where he appoints bishops and so on. There is a limit to the jurisdiction, again, like Rome. I do not see it as establishing a universal Roman jurisdiction. In fact, I see it contradicting it.

SOGFPP said:

#2.... innovations? Like the Alexandrian "innovation" of Theotokos? Wasn't Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople at the time of his downfall?

Click to expand...

Yes, and like most of these problems, they arose in the East and were principlly dealt with in the East. This is where the collegiality of bishops comes in handy . When the Patriarch of Constantinople goes astray, it is Orthodox not to follow him, and thus, the Church corrects herself.

It was natural for this to happen in the East, as well. Old Rome had already been in decline before St. Constantine moved the Capital to New Rome. With that, though, the intellecual and cultural center of the Empire also moved. Ideas were exchanged, not in the West but in the East. So where you find the centers of education, so also will you find centers of innovation. The East, however, dealt with them.

The innovations I referred to in the West stayed, because this was not the case. Thus, when a Pope embraced something, it had something of a permanent character. There is no process to counter an undisputed head developing doctrine.

The two methods yield two different results. The former, while it can take place because bishops have more lee-way, returned invariably. The latter, though, when its chief bishop sanctioned something, the innovation remained.

SOGFPP said:

What about the aforementioned Canon 28? Was Pope Leo correct in rejecting this innovation due to the fact that Alexandria (founded by St. Mark) was rightly second in the Church as the ancient custom dictated?

Click to expand...

Why did Rome have the primacy of honor? It wasn't inherently because it was Peter's Church. After all, Antioch comes before it. It was because it was the capital of the Empire. It, thus, had order of precedence because of this. However, it was no longer "the" capital, but a capital and a symbolic one, more than a real one. The seat of power was Constantinople, and it was also "the" capital. Unless we simply want to make it legalistic, the logic that gave Rome a primacy of honor, would also apply to Constantinople.

In this situation, we can either abandon the reasons behind the primacy of honor and hold to the canons as dead rules, or we can acknowledge the reasons for the primacy of honor, but the application must change. The Ecumenical Council chose the latter and preserved the meaning of the rules. They chose the spirit of the law over the letter in so doing.

SOGFPP said:

What about the Patriarch accepting Emperor Zeno's Henoticon (482) which seemed to disavow the Chalcedonian definition regarding Christ..... a position later abandoned after pressure from Rome.

Click to expand...

This isn't really a problem for the position. The bishop of Rome was Orthodox there, and Constantinople was not. It was a compromise that suited nobody, and the fight ensued for a while. It wasn't, however, a Pope that ended the controversy, but the Emperor Justin I, and with the signing of Pope Hormisdas' statement. In the end, Hormisdas' approach coupled with a new emperor brought peace.

SOGFPP said:

The Monothelete controversy?

Click to expand...

I like this one in the conversation. Pope Honorius was condemned a heretic by the East and repented. The sixth council brings to light an interesting set of facts for interpretaton from your end:

1). Not one of the Seven Councils was ever called by the Bishop of Rome. Indeed, they were all called by the Emperor/Empress.
2). All Councils gained their authority through their widespread acceptance.
3). In the sixth, the Bishop of Rome was condemned as holding heresy.

These facts working together contradict a claim of papal supremacy over the Church .

SOGFPP said:

#3 is your opinion..... and quite a leap, if I may say so.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I think it's not. However, I may start a thread on that in the future.

SOGFPP said:

#4 Well...... the Eastern Schism had as much to do with politics as it did theology.... I would say that it's a hard sell to put the Schism as a result of the Primacy issue.... it was so much more than just that.

Click to expand...

You are right. It did have to do with politics as much as theology, but so did Chalcedon. Like Chalcedon and Ephesus, but they don't lessen the importance of those divisions.

SOGFPP said:

Well....my historical research shows your account to be a bit off. Ignatius was deposed by Emperor Michael III and replaced by Photius....much to the dismay of Nicholas, who even with his troubles with Ignatius, was horrified at the apparent irregularities of his disposition. Nicholas sent legates to Constantinople who decided in favor of Photius..... but when Photius indicated that he did not recognize the authority of the Pope to make such a decision.... Nicholas promptly said "kiss my fanny" (ok, I'm guessing ) and refused to then reconize Photius as Partiarch.
Basil the Macedonian took the throne in 867... removed Photius, and restored Ignatius.... a new Pope (Hadrian) sought a reconciliation and send delegates to a council at Constantinople in 869..... to no avail.
Then Ignatius died.... Basil reappointed Photius.... who then sought to immediately repair relations with Rome. A council was held at Constantinople in 879 that annulled the acts of 869 and recognized the perfect orthodoxy of Rome.

Click to expand...

Well, actually, it wasn't an unprecedented incident . Patriarchs had been deposed and dethroned by the Emperor many times already. Chrysostom, for instance, was dethroned for his criticisms of the lifestyle of the Joanna (I know that's got to be misspelled). It elicited no episcopal outrage. It did, though, from the people. The same thing happened after Chalcedon. The Council signed their decree, and the state used its authority to depose Dioscorus, who continued to teach anyway. The forcible dethroning of bishops through state authority had happned many times already.

Nicholas' demands, though, were unprecedented. The closest event that had ever happned to my knowledge was during the Henoticon, but the letter wasn't sent out with arguments for the Pope's universal jurisdiction. This had never occured before in history, and such an unprecedented action isn't a problem when the situation in question had happened before.

So, in leu of that, why should Photius have acquiesced to Nicholas' demands when the traditional approach had already settled it? It was, after all, coupled with a demand to recite the Creed with the Filioque. That, to the East, is (and always has been) a heresy. So, we have unprecedented action and the request to accept heresy. From the East's perspective, St. Photius is a hero for refusing this.

SOGFPP said:

You then have to look at 1024 when Emperor Basil and Patriarch Eustathius proposed a formula for the primacy of Rome, but left Constantinople self-sufficient and autonomous...... to which the Pope originally agreed!.... but later backed away from.

Click to expand...

The Patriarch, though, cannot force everyone to accept a claim simply because he signed it. It was signed, and rejected by the other bishops. As such, the council doesn't have any teeth. In fact, it's considered something of a robber council.

This method is a double-edged sword. In 879, the West and East agreed on a Council that condemned the Filioque as here heresy. This Council is no longer held authoritative in the West. It, however, clearly was widely agreed on. Something the council you mentioned cannot claim. In fact, I believe this one was recognized in the west into the eleventh century.

SOGFPP said:

Humbert and his pal Pope Gregory VII and the confusion and comedy of errors that July 16, 1054 is known for also continued to further the rift.... but there was STILL no schism..... yet.

I would have to say that it was the Fourth Crusade (1202-04) and the destruction of Constantinople was the final sin (to include the sins of both our Rites) that made the Schism a reality.

Peace my friend,
Scott

Click to expand...

Yes, "comedy of errors" does describe a lot of it. I prefer to say we can't set a hard date on when the Schism went, so I simply go with 1024, because it's the traditional date, with 1204 topping it off. By that point, strong theological differences were already in place (Filioque, and the other differences). It was 1204 that made it a hard and fast schism. It became real on the streets then .

Have a good day,
Kenneth

PS -- I don't feel like hunting out the smilies, so I'm just going to post it without images.

I love it, I love it, I love it!!!!:jiggy:

Can I just tell you how wonderful it is to have this discussion..... I grow so tired of theological discussions with non-Catholics and all the "but the Bible says this...." garbage.

Don't get me wrong.... I love them dearly, and NetDoc, fromtheheart, Linus, etc.. are wonderful to chat with....... but this is freakin awesome!

Ok.... back to my "mature" side .... I just wanted to pop on and say hello.... I'll do some research and post something later.

Thanks again Kenneth,
Scott

Thanks Scott.

I'm not the most "mature," though . Remember, I haven't really been fully inducted into Orthodoxy. I'm speaking from my own research and very limited understanding. I have a lot of growth left.

Scott,

I fear we are on the verge of committing a grave error. Protestantism treats the Bible as their sole source, and it thus becomes a football that is kicked around and subject to their own, private interpretations.

It is far, far easier to do this with the Fathers. The Holy Scripture is not subject to private interpretation, and so, we should practice restraint. The Fathers should be no different. They are easier to proof-text simply because of their bulk.

I shall practice more restraint my future arguments, because I'm afraid I may do this...or may have already crossed the line.

To bolster my interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon and to treat the Fathers with more respect and context, I will offer this argument from Nicea, starting with Canon 6:

"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdition in all threse, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradicton, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

Here we see that theprovinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis' ancient traditions continue, and it affirms Alexandria's jurisdiction there. It likens this practice as the "customary" one for Rome. The langauge appears to indicate, not establishment, but confirmation.

What I see in this is a confirmation of the independance of each jurisdiction, that bishops must be approved by the Metropolitan, and that this is the practice of Rome. We see, here, that the Metropolitan has a primacy of honor. However, if we look at Canon 4:

"It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent also be given and communicated in writing, then the ordination shall take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan."

Here we have outlined more clearly how the ordination and authority of the Metropolitan (and the Roman Bishop by extension, since Canon 6 makes the connection). The bishops are allowed to appoint (three or more) whomever they choose, but the appointment is only valid with the consent of the Metropolitan. As a result, the bishops pick who they want, but he gets a veto if necessary. In fact, if there is a dispute, according to Canon 6, then it is sent to the Metropolitan on the basis of a vote. No provision is made for him to appoint the person coming to him.

However, a place of honor is mentioned in Aelia right after this in Canon VII:

"Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia should be honored, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour."

He is given honored just under the Metropolitan, but there is no authority that goes with this. It is a seat of honor only. No provision is made in here, that the Aelian bishop should have a special authority to go with this. In its turn, this canon establishes that the Church has the concept that a bishop may be given higher honors without authority to go with it.

Finally, the excursus on Nicea ends with Canon V:

"Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let th eprovision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry shuld be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, tha tthis matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all th ebishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), an dlet the second be held about autumn."

Here, we find the Nicene canons teaching clearly that when a bishop excommunicates someone, the other bishops hold an investigation, and if the excommunication is shown just, it stands and is binding for all bishops. It makes no exception for any bishop, nor does any bishop figure prominently into deciding how the investigation should go, whether it is the Metropolitan or the Bishop of Rome. The seat of honor doesn't extend this far in authority.

I have demonstrated that Nicea taught a collegiality of bishops, and that it had a limit to Rome's jurisdiction. Indeed, Roman authority wasn't absolute even in its own jurisdiction. This would explain why St. Cyril of Carthage could have a running feud with Pope Stephen and not have to relent. Further, the reading accords well with the version of his On the Unity of the Church which teaches a collegiality of bishops, which also harmonizes with his feud with Pope Stephen.

No*s said:

I fear we are on the verge of committing a grave error.

Click to expand...

Not at all.... in my opinion.

I have no formal opinion..... I, like you (I imagine) are doing this for understanding..... not sinful in the least.

I don't claim to have all the answers, and am sincerely seeking knowledge as it relates to our mutual faith.

I'll follow up on this thread later today.

Scott