OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 05:33:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Thou Art Peter"  (Read 42519 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #225 on: December 13, 2003, 05:07:41 AM »

I disagree with you in the strongest terms regarding the authority of St. Peter among the Apostles. It is readily apparent that he was the first and chief of the Apostles. Plenty of Church Fathers said the same. Look back at this thread if you doubt that.

Hi Linus7

What is your opinion of the statement made in 1848 by the EO Patriarchs and bishops?

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #226 on: December 13, 2003, 05:23:02 AM »

I see. So you deny that our Lord made St. Peter the leader of the Apostles and that that authority passed to his successors, the bishops of Rome?

I'm basing this opinion on the teaching of the Eastern Patriarchs in their 1848 encyclical which says:

"None of us will question that it was a model of orthodoxy. We will specially add, for its greater praise, from the historian Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 12), the passage, which his Holiness has overlooked, respecting the mode by which for a time she was enabled to preserve the orthodoxy which we praise:—"For, as everywhere," saith Sozomen, "the Church throughout the West, being guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers, was delivered from contention and deception concerning these things." Would any of the Fathers or ourselves deny her canonical privilege in the rank of the hierarchy, so long as she was guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers, walking by the plain rule of Scripture and the holy Synods!"

Only a canonical privilege in the rank of hierarchy is allowed

and

"We see that very primacy, for which his Holiness now contends with all his might, as did his predecessors, transformed from a brotherly character and hierarchical privilege into a lordly superiority."

A primacy of honour is allowed but no 'lordly superiority'.

and

"His Holiness says (p. ix. 1.12) that the Corinthians, divided among themselves, referred the matter to Clement, Pope of Rome, who wrote to them his decision on the case; and they so prized his decision that they read it in the Churches. But this event is a very weak support for the Papal authority in the house of God. For Rome being then the center of the Imperial Province and the chief City, in which the Emperors lived, it was proper that any question of importance, as history shows that of the Corinthians to have been, should be decided there, especially if one of the contending parties ran thither for external aid: as is done even to this day. The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, when unexpected points of difficulty arise, write to the Patriarch of Constantinople, because of its being the seat of Empire, as also on account of its synodical privileges; and if this brotherly aid shall rectify that which should be rectified, it is well; but if not, the matter is reported to the province, according to the established system. But this brotherly agreement in Christian faith is not purchased by the servitude of the Churches of God."

This is clear and unequivocable. There is no submission of the Churches of God to that of Rome, and the seniority of the Church of Rome is due to its being the center of the Imperial Province.

and finally

"For, unless the Church of Christ was founded upon the immovable rock of St. Peter’s Confession, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God (which was the answer of the Apostles in common, when the question was put to them, Whom say ye that I am? (Matt. xvi. 15,) as the Fathers, both Eastern and Western, interpret the passage to us), the Church was built upon a slippery foundation, even on Cephas himself, not to say on the Pope, who, after monopolizing the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, has made such an administration of them as is plain from history. But our divine Fathers, with one accord, teach that the sense of the thrice-repeated command, Feed my sheep, implied no prerogative in St. Peter over the other Apostles, least of all in his successors."

It is Peter's confession which is the Rock on which the Church is built and which was the answer of 'the Apostles in common' and as 'the Fathers both Eastern and Western interpret the passage'. And it cannot be denied that the Eastern Patriarchs teach that there is no prerogative in St Peter over the other Apostles, least of all in his successors.

Are your own Patriarchs wrong on this matter? I consider myself to be wholly in agreement with them.

A primacy of honour, of course. But no primacy of authority at all, 'least of all in his successors'.

PT

Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #227 on: December 13, 2003, 12:54:33 PM »

Quote
peterfarrington: "For, unless the Church of Christ was founded upon the immovable rock of St. Peter’s Confession, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God (which was the answer of the Apostles in common, when the question was put to them, Whom say ye that I am? (Matt. xvi. 15,) as the Fathers, both Eastern and Western, interpret the passage to us), the Church was built upon a slippery foundation, even on Cephas himself, not to say on the Pope, who, after monopolizing the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, has made such an administration of them as is plain from history. But our divine Fathers, with one accord, teach that the sense of the thrice-repeated command, Feed my sheep, implied no prerogative in St. Peter over the other Apostles, least of all in his successors."

It is Peter's confession which is the Rock on which the Church is built and which was the answer of 'the Apostles in common' and as 'the Fathers both Eastern and Western interpret the passage'. And it cannot be denied that the Eastern Patriarchs teach that there is no prerogative in St Peter over the other Apostles, least of all in his successors.

Are your own Patriarchs wrong on this matter? I consider myself to be wholly in agreement with them.

A primacy of honour, of course. But no primacy of authority at all, 'least of all in his successors'.

You asked what I think of this 1848 encyclical of some of the Eastern patriarchs.

Well, my impression of the portion quoted above is that it runs counter to the full patristic record and that of the councils, which speaks of St. Peter's leadership of the Apostles and of the bishops of Rome as his successors.

Of course the Church was built upon St. Peter's confession of faith in Christ, but it was also built upon St. peter himself, whom our Lord named Rock, and who is the man inseparable from his confession.

I would say it is a good thing I am not obligated to regard the patriarchs of 1848 as infallible.

Otherwise, how should I square their encyclical of 1848 with the much earlier, pre-Schism statement of Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, who, at the conclusion of the 7th Ecumenical Council, wrote to Pope Hadrian I:

"Your Holiness has inherited the See of the divine Apostle Peter, wherefore lawfully by the will of God you preside over all the hierarchy of the Church" ?

Or the following from St. Gregory of Nyssa?

"The memory of Peter, the head of the Apostles, is celebrated; and magnified indeed with him are the other members of the Church; but upon him is the Church of God firmly established. For he is, agreeably to the gift conferred upon him by the Lord, that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church" (quoted in James Likoudis' The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, p. 43).

Many other statements of the early Fathers might be produced that affirm that our Lord made St. Peter the leader of the Apostles and that the bishops of Rome were Peter's successors.

Perhaps the encyclical of 1848 had in mind the papacy of 1848 and not the historic, pre-Schism papacy.

I don't think we are debating the authority of the post-Schism papacy but rather the rightful place of the Bishop of Rome within Christ's Church.


Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #228 on: December 13, 2003, 12:57:28 PM »

Many other statements of the early Fathers might be produced that affirm that our Lord made St. Peter the leader of the Apostles and that the bishops of Rome were Peter's successors.

Perhaps the encyclical of 1848 had in mind the papacy of 1848 and not the historic, pre-Schism papacy.

I don't think we are debating the authority of the post-Schism papacy but rather the rightful place of the Bishop of Rome within Christ's Church.

The Patriarchs and bishops of 1848 explicity addressed the position of St Peter and that of all of his successors. Are you therefore saying that 4 EO Patriarchs and about 30 or 40 representative bishops were all wrong? I can find no other EO bishops opposing this encyclical. Are you suggesting that it is heretical?

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #229 on: December 13, 2003, 01:07:37 PM »

And this is from an encyclical of the Patriarch and Synod of Constantinople in 1895:

"But having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows. Our Lord Jesus Christ alone is the eternal Prince and immortal Head of the Church, for 'He is the Head of the body, the Church."

This seems absolutely definite. Christ is the head of the Church and NOT the Pope of Rome.

Also the encyclical teaches:

"Each particular self-governing Church, both in the East and West, was totally independent and self-administered in the time of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. And just as the bishops of the self-governing Churches of the East, so also those of Africa, Spain, Gaul, Germany and Britain managed the affairs of their own Churches, each by their local synods, the Bishop of Rome having no right to interfere, and he himself also was equally subject and obedient to the decrees of synods. But on important questions which needed the sanction of the universal Church an appeal was made to an Ecumenical Council, which alone was and is the supreme tribunal in the universal Church. Such was the ancient constitution of the Church; but the bishops were independent of each other and each entirely free within his own bounds, obeying only the syndical decrees, and they sat as equal one to another in synods."

and

"Such, then, being the divinely inspired teaching of the apostles respecting the foundation and Prince of the Church of God, of course the sacred Fathers, who held firmly to the apostolic traditions, could not have or conceive any idea of an absolute primacy of the Apostle Peter and the bishops of Rome; nor could they give any other interpretation, totally unknown to the Church, to that passage of the Gospel, but that which was true and right; nor could they arbitrarily and by themselves invent a novel doctrine respecting excessive privileges of the Bishop of Rome as successor, if so be, of Peter; especially whilst the Church of Rome was chiefly founded, not by Peter, whose apostolic action at Rome is totally unknown to history, but by the heaven-caught apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, through his disciples, whose apostolic ministry in Rome is well known to all."

We must surely conclude that between 1848 and 1895 the Church of the Eastern Orthodox had fallen completely into heresy if we assert against the Patriarchs and bishops that the Pope of Rome is the Head of the Church amd has any authority at all.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #230 on: December 13, 2003, 01:44:38 PM »

Bishop Kallistos Ware also has something to say:

"We have already had occasion to mention the Papacy when speaking of the different political situations in east and west; and we have seen how the centralized and monarchical structure of the western Church was reinforced by the barbarian invasions. Now so long as the Pope claimed an absolute power only in the west, Byzantium raised no objections. The Byzantines did not mind if the western Church was centralized, so long as the Papacy did not interfere in the east. The Pope, however, believed his immediate power of jurisdiction to extend to the east as well as to the west; and as soon as he tried to enforce this claim within the eastern Patriarchates, trouble was bound to arise. The Greeks assigned to the Pope a primacy of honour, but not the universal supremacy which he regarded as his due. The Pope viewed infallibility as his own prerogative; the Greeks held that in matters of the faith the final decision rested not with the Pope alone, but with a Council representing all the bishops of the Church. Here we have two different conceptions of the visible organization of the Church.

The Orthodox attitude to the Papacy is admirably expressed by a twelfth-century writer, Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia:

My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office . . . How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.'

That was how an Orthodox felt in the twelfth century, when the whole question had come out into the open. In earlier centuries the Greek attitude to the Papacy was basically the same, although not yet sharpened by controversy. Up to 850, Rome and the east avoided an open conflict over the Papal claims, but the divergence of views was not the less serious for being partially concealed."

Note that he says the opinion of +Nicetas was held before then but had not come into the open.

A seat of honour at the councils, but no more.

PT

Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #231 on: December 13, 2003, 02:07:01 PM »

Quote
peterfarrington: "But having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church . . .

You are presenting statements from Orthodox patriarchs and others countering the modern, post-Schism, Latin view of the papacy.

In what way and when have I advocated the modern, post-Schism, Latin view of the papacy?

I would certainly agree that the popes are not infallible.

 And I agree with what you quoted from Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia:

Quote
My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable seat at an Ecumenical Council.

But, given the historical record and the patristic and conciliar testimony, this statement:

Quote
A seat of honour at the councils, but no more.

is ridiculous.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2003, 02:08:20 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #232 on: December 13, 2003, 02:22:40 PM »

You are presenting statements from Orthodox patriarchs and others countering the modern, post-Schism, Latin view of the papacy.

Not at all. +Kallistos says that the views of +Nicetas were held before the schism. And the statements of the Patriarchs in 1848 and 1895 addresses the issue theologically that the Pope of Rome has never been the head of the Church.

+Kallistos makes it plain that he is not addressing the post-schism Church when he says:

"Nicolas was a great reforming Pope, with an exalted idea of the prerogatives of his see, and he had already done much to establish an absolute power over all bishops in the west. But he believed this absolute power to extend to the east also: as he put it in a letter of 865, the Pope is endowed with authority 'over all the earth, that is, over every Church'. This was precisely what the Byzantines were not prepared to grant. Confronted with the dispute between Photius and Ignatius, Nicolas thought that he saw a golden opportunity to enforce his claim to universal jurisdiction: he would make both parties submit to his arbitration. "

and

"The Byzantines for their part were willing to allow appeals to Rome, but only under the specific conditions laid down on of the Council of Sardica (343). This Canon states that a bishop, if under sentence of condemnation, can appeal to Rome, and the Pope, if he sees cause, can order a retrial; this retrial, however, is not to be conducted by the Pope himself at Rome, but by the bishops of the provinces adjacent to that of the condemned bishop. Nicolas, so the Byzantines felt, in reversing the decisions of his legates and demanding a retrial at Rome itself, was going far beyond the terms of this Canon. They regarded his behaviour as an unwarrantable and uncanonical interference in the affairs of another Patriarchate."

This is 200 years before the schism. +Kallistos is not talking about the post-schism Church at all. And returning to the encyclical of 1895:

"The divine Fathers, honoring the Bishop of Rome only as the bishop of the capital city of the Empire, gave him the honorary prerogative of presidency, considering him simply as the bishop first in order, that is, first among equals; which prerogative they also assigned afterwards to the Bishop of Constantinople, when that city became the capital of the Roman Empire, as the twenty-eighth canon of the fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon bears witness, saying, among other things, as follows: 'We do also determine and decree the same things respecting the prerogatives of the most holy Church of the said Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers have rightly given the prerogative to the throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city. And the hundred and fifty most religious bishops, moved by the same consideration, assigned an equal prerogative to the most holy throne of New Rome.' From this canon it is very evident that the Bishop of Rome is equal in honor to the Bishop of the Church of Constantinople and to those other Churches, and there is no hint given in any canon or by any of the Fathers that the Bishop of Rome alone has ever been prince of the universal Church and the infallible judge of the bishops of the other independent and self-governing Churches, or the successor of the Apostle Peter and vicar of Jesus Christ on earth."

This refers constantly to the 'divine Fathers' that is to the historical position of the Orthodox Church. 'The Bishop of Rome is equal in honour to the Bishop of the Church of Constantinople, and the Church of Rome has presidency only because it is the Imperial city.

How can the Patriarch of Constantinople be referring only to the post-Schism church, since in 1895 the church of Rome was not the Imperial capital. He must mean that from the very beginning, that is from the first century, the Pope of Rome had presidency because he was the bishop of the Imperial city. There is no mention here of St Peter at all.

I can't see how you can say that these documents, and +Kallistos are promoting a primacy and any authority of the Pope of Rome. The words all say the opposite. They say that Rome is the honorary president because it is the Imperial city, they say that Peter's confession did not set him apart, and that the Pope of Rome has never had authority in or over any other Church. They don't say this only in respect to the present RC church but they base these teachings on what they consider to be the constant witness of the Church.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #233 on: December 13, 2003, 02:25:09 PM »

Quote
peterfarrington: We must surely conclude that between 1848 and 1895 the Church of the Eastern Orthodox had fallen completely into heresy if we assert against the Patriarchs and bishops that the Pope of Rome is the Head of the Church amd has any authority at all.

No, we mustn't.

Again, I have been talking about the pre-Schism office of the Bishop of Rome and the rightful place of the successors of St. Peter in the Church.

You produce 19th-century, anti-Latin polemics - which were written to oppose the modern, post-Schism, fully developed, Latin idea of the papacy - and oppose them anachronistically to the patristic and conciliar passages I have quoted.

I am looking at the office of the Bishop of Rome as it was in the early Church, before the Great Schism, and as it was meant to be.

I do not yet know exactly what the extent of the papal primacy was. I believe it was a good deal more than a mere "seat of honor" and a great deal less than that afforded by the modern RC conception.

But 19th-century encyclicals that were designed to deal with a non-Orthodox, 19th-century papacy have little to do with the original, Orthodox papacy of which I have been speaking.



Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #234 on: December 13, 2003, 02:32:35 PM »

But 19th-century encyclicals that were designed to deal with a non-Orthodox, 19th-century papacy have little to do with the original, Orthodox papacy of which I have been speaking.

I don't see how you can take:

"Our Lord Jesus Christ alone is the eternal Prince and immortal Head of the Church, for 'He is the Head of the body, the Church,"

and then insist that in fact the opposite is true and that the Pope of Rome is the Head of the Church? This has absolutely nothing to do with post-schism RCism. It is saying clearly that the Pope of Rome has never the Head of the Church.

or

"For the Fathers have rightly given the prerogative to the throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city. "

And say again that the opposite is true and that the Pope of Rome has the prerogative because Peter was made Head of the Church.

These are teachings of the Patriarchs that are relevant to all times, not just post-Schism. They don't say, "Rome was given precedence because of St Peter until the Schism and then it only had the precedence because Rome was the Imperial capital". Rome was givem precedence not because of Peter but because of its being the capital.

If you disagree with this I respect that completely but you seem to be disagreeing with the obvious and plain sense of all the EO patriarchs.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #235 on: December 13, 2003, 02:46:00 PM »

Quote
peterfarrington: How can the Patriarch of Constantinople be referring only to the post-Schism church, since in 1895 the church of Rome was not the Imperial capital. He must mean that from the very beginning, that is from the first century, the Pope of Rome had presidency because he was the bishop of the Imperial city. There is no mention here of St Peter at all.

I can't see how you can say that these documents, and +Kallistos are promoting a primacy and any authority of the Pope of Rome. The words all say the opposite. They say that Rome is the honorary president because it is the Imperial city, they say that Peter's confession did not set him apart, and that the Pope of Rome has never had authority in or over any other Church. They don't say this only in respect to the present RC church but they base these teachings on what they consider to be the constant witness of the Church.

Hmmm . . .

Well that is certainly something to think about.

From what I have read of the Fathers and the councils, I would say that the idea that the bishops of Rome held a merely honorary primacy because of their location in the Roman capital runs counter to the patristic and conciliar record.

It leaves me wondering to whom I should listen: 19th-century patriarchs and Bishop Kallistos Ware, or the Fathers and councils of the early Church. They don't all seem to be saying the same things; and, in that case, somebody must be wrong.

I don't know what else to say. I could be wrong, but I can read and have read that the Bishop of Rome was regarded as the Head of the churches and the successor of St. Peter.

It seems to me to maintain otherwise is to accuse many of the Fathers and Doctors and Popes of the early Church of gross error or falsehood.

I guess I could be wrong, but, frankly, I don't see how.

This is obviously a subject worthy of further study and prayer.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2003, 02:49:58 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #236 on: December 13, 2003, 02:58:16 PM »

It leaves me wondering to whom I should listen: 19th-century patriarchs and Bishop Kallistos Ware, or the Fathers and councils of the early Church. They don't all seem to be saying the same things; and, in that case, somebody must be wrong.

I don't know what else to say. I could be wrong, but I can read and have read that the Bishop of Rome was regarded as the Head of the churches and the successor of St. Peter.

It seems to me to maintain otherwise is to accuse many of the Fathers and Doctors and Popes of the early Church of gross error or falsehood.

For myself, I would hesitate to read the Fathers and then say that I knew better than the bishops and Patriarchs of the Orthodox Churches when it comes to understanding what they mean.

Surely Protestants always say 'Well I've read Galatians 15:27 and it clearly says X, Y and Z and I don't care if you disagree'. On another list I've just had a conversation with someone whos is convinced the Bible teaches re-incarnation because he has read passages that say so. And he won't accept any other authority than his own reading and thinking.

I am not saying that we are in the same situation but perhaps we do need to be careful before we suggest that the bishops are all wrong because they contradict the fathers. Surely we mean that they seem to disagree with OUR reading of the fathers, that isn't the same.

I am very interested in considering the nature of presidency in the Church but I think it safer to start with the clear position of the Patriarchs and bishops and then read the Fathers, rather than the other way round. I have questions about the practice of my COP baptising Roman Catholics but it wouldn't be wise for me to just read the Fathers and then criticise the bishops, safer to ask the bishops first and then approach the Fathers.

May God grant us both wisdom and understanding.

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #237 on: December 13, 2003, 04:18:03 PM »

Dear Linus,

I think it is good to keep in mind, especially when considering the ways that councils, bishops and patriarchs addressed each other, that pious hyperbole is not limited to the Akathist hymn.

John.
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #238 on: December 13, 2003, 04:30:35 PM »

I think it is good to keep in mind, especially when considering the ways that councils, bishops and patriarchs addressed each other, that pious hyperbole is not limited to the Akathist hymn.

A very good point.

St Cyril writes to Nestorius and addresses him thus,

"To the most religious and beloved of God, fellow minister Nestorius."

and in the letter with the XII anathemas in which Nestorius is most explicitly accused of heresy he starts,

"To the most reverend and God-loving fellow-minister Nestorius".

Should we conclude from this that St Cyril considered the heretic Nestorius to be revered and God-loving and a fellow-minister?

Likewise when I start a letter "Dear Sir" it does not mean that I subject myself in any sense to the person I am addressing. It is a formality.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #239 on: December 14, 2003, 12:12:37 AM »

Quote
Linus7:
It leaves me wondering to whom I should listen: 19th-century patriarchs and Bishop Kallistos Ware, or the Fathers and councils of the early Church. They don't all seem to be saying the same things; and, in that case, somebody must be wrong.

I don't know what else to say. I could be wrong, but I can read and have read that the Bishop of Rome was regarded as the Head of the churches and the successor of St. Peter.

It seems to me to maintain otherwise is to accuse many of the Fathers and Doctors and Popes of the early Church of gross error or falsehood.

Quote
peterfarrington: For myself, I would hesitate to read the Fathers and then say that I knew better than the bishops and Patriarchs of the Orthodox Churches when it comes to understanding what they mean.

Well, when some early, pre-Schism Fathers, patriarchs, and popes say A, and later, post-Schism patriarchs say Not A, that is a case of contradiction, not a case of the latter having a clearer understanding of the Fathers than the rest of us.

I have not yet found a way to make A and Not A make sense in this case.

The Eastern patriarchs whose encyclicals you quote were, I take it, Chalcedonians?

Do you find them authoritative in their assessment of the papacy and yet mistaken in their evaluation of the Council of Chalcedon?

Quote
peterfarrington: Surely Protestants always say 'Well I've read Galatians 15:27 and it clearly says X, Y and Z and I don't care if you disagree'. On another list I've just had a conversation with someone whos is convinced the Bible teaches re-incarnation because he has read passages that say so. And he won't accept any other authority than his own reading and thinking.

Well, what I see is you strongly emphasizing post-Schism encyclicals from 1848 and 1895 because they support your private assessment, yet skirting the many many passages from the Fathers which assert that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles and that the bishops of Rome were his successors.

In your remark above you assume that those encyclicals have the force of dogma, while ignoring the many patristic documents that apparently contradict them.

What we have here is early Fathers and councils who say A and a couple of much later encyclicals that say Not A.

You prefer the latter, and so believe them to be authoritative, although promulgated by prelates outside of your own communion.

I don't see how your assessment is any less a case of private interpretation than is mine.

Quote
peterfarrington: I am not saying that we are in the same situation but perhaps we do need to be careful before we suggest that the bishops are all wrong because they contradict the fathers. Surely we mean that they seem to disagree with OUR reading of the fathers, that isn't the same.

Well, somebody is wrong when Church Fathers and councils write, "Peter was the Rock upon which Christ founded His Church, and the bishops of Rome are his successors and heads of the churches" (or words to that effect) and some later, post-Schism patriarchs come along and deny those very things.

Perhaps the encyclicals you produced only seem to deny that St. Peter was the Rock and leader of the Apostles and that the bishops of Rome were his successors.

Quote
peterfarrington:
I am very interested in considering the nature of presidency in the Church but I think it safer to start with the clear position of the Patriarchs and bishops and then read the Fathers, rather than the other way round. I have questions about the practice of my COP baptising Roman Catholics but it wouldn't be wise for me to just read the Fathers and then criticise the bishops, safer to ask the bishops first and then approach the Fathers.

May God grant us both wisdom and understanding.

Peter Theodore


If I read A first, from a number of what I regard as reliable, authoritative sources, and only then what appears to be something that says Not A from a post on an internet discussion forum, it is not very likely that I am going to quickly and easily give up my impression that A is correct.

I believe in the authority of the Church as superior to my own private judgment; but when highly respected patristic voices say one thing, and later, less highly respected voices say another, it is difficult to know what the doctrine of the Church is.

I need to re-read the encyclicals you posted. It is my sense that they were directed not so much at the historic primacy of the bishops of Rome but at the later, fully-developed papacy.

Perhaps you could examine some of the quotes I supplied, such as the one from the Patriarch Tarasius to Pope Hadrian I, and explain how they do not contradict the notion that the bishops of Rome had no more than a primacy of honor within the Church.

Perhaps you could also explain why the bishops assembled at Chalcedon exclaimed, "Peter has thus spoken through Leo," if Leo's primacy was based not upon his succession from St. Peter but merely upon his location in old Rome.

And, similarly, why the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council wrote the Emperor,
"The ink shone and Peter spoke by [Pope] Agatho."

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #240 on: December 14, 2003, 12:19:57 AM »

Dear Linus,

I think it is good to keep in mind, especially when considering the ways that councils, bishops and patriarchs addressed each other, that pious hyperbole is not limited to the Akathist hymn.

John.

Is it merely pious hyperbole to refer to the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter and Head of the churches?

Were such things said of the bishops of any other churches?

I don't think hyperbole will suffice to explain all of the references to the leadership of the popes.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #241 on: December 14, 2003, 12:52:16 AM »

Perhaps someone would care to explain the following portion of the letter of Pope Hadrian I, which was read into the record of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the one that condemned iconoclasm), and why it aroused no protests from the bishops in attendance.

"If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts, as by the lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine, and another Helen, through whom at the beginning the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church derived strength, and like whom your own imperial fame is spread abroad by triumphs, so as to be brilliant and deeply fixed in the whole world. But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth, be often your protector, and trample all barbarous nations under your feet, and everywhere make you conquerors.  For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shewn to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is rounded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors, etc."

The underlining is mine.

So, did Pope Hadrian I lie, or was he simply mistaken?

If he did either of those things, why no protests from the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2003, 12:52:54 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #242 on: December 14, 2003, 04:52:12 AM »

Hi

I think you are just skirting round what the 1848 and 1895 encyclicals are saying. It is pretty obvious, and it has a bearing on what they are saying about the primacy or not of Ropme throughout history.

I can accept what they say about Rome AND what they say about Chalcedon.

If you can't, and I don't mean this polemically, then you have a problem because these are your bishops and patriarchs and you are saying that you disagree with them.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #243 on: December 14, 2003, 04:55:54 AM »

Is it merely pious hyperbole to refer to the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter and Head of the churches?

In my 10 years of study of the Fathers I can think of no Alexandrian situation when the Pope of Rome was given any kind of authoriity. This was also denied by St Photius of Constantinople, by St Hilary of Arles, by St Theodore of Canterbury, by St Cyprian of Carthage and many many more.

I have been reading just last night many councils that write to the Pope to keep him informed but say 'This is what WE have decided, and we have read your letter and confirm it is in agreement with what WE have decided.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #244 on: December 14, 2003, 05:10:10 AM »

As for Pope Hadrian I, I think you have altogether too literal an understanding of Tradition and history. I think you will find that the Patriarchs of the East were used to the claims and language of Rome. It doesn't mean they accepted it, or that they felt the need to contradict it at every point.

Councils were human events as well as ones where at their best the Holy Spirit was active. There were lots of things said and done that were passed over quietly. If you are going to say that everything said at a council is infallible then there are some problems with that position. The dogmatic statements may well be but just because someone reads out a letter and the bishops choose not to cause a fuss doesn't mean that everything in the letter is accepted. St Photius et al show that it never was.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #245 on: December 14, 2003, 08:26:30 AM »

Actually Pete I don't see anything unorthodox about Pope Adrian's letter. The way I see it I think we have another clash of interpretations, or terminologies, no different to the Oriental Orthodox defintion of Christ's nature in contrast to the Monophysites - as St. Cyril's theology can be interpreted in the Orthodox way and in the Monophysite way, so too can terms esteeming Rome be understood in the context of the Orthodox Primacy of the Pope.

It's unthinkable that a team of Orthodox Bishops would just sit in silence in an Ecumenical Council throughout the reading of a Bishop's self-aggrandizing letter had it contained unorthodox contents in any way, the same Ecumenical Council where bishops were quick to utter "heresy! anathema!" at any deviation in the faith. I think around this time East and West were no longer interpreting the lanuage of Papal Primacy harmoniously; it was only a short time later, when Rome's pseudo-Isidorean inspired definition of Primacy was translated into action, that the trouble began; this occurred under Pope Nicholas.

There was certainly a high level of language soaked with flattering hyperbole directed in all directions, but interestingly many of the things that were said about the Bishop of Rome, and the Roman See, were also said of other great Apostolic Sees. Still there's no reason why this factor would impinge on the Bishop of Rome's universally recognized unique pastoral role. Take Avitus of Vienne's letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem as one example of such honorary language, which could very well be interpreted as a Universal Primacy of the Bishop of Jerusalem:

"Your apostolate exercises a primacy granted to it by God: and it is careful to show that it occupies a principal place in the Church not only by its privileges, but by its merits."

I would interpret any title bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome in context with the understanding of the Papal Primacy according to the Fathers and especially the Ecumenical Council, the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit - whether it be Universal Pope, or Sovereign Pontiff, Head of the Churches, or Patriarch of all the Sees, Universal Roman Church, it must always be consistent with:

"You came to us; you have been for everyone the interpreter of the voice of the Blessed Peter....We were some 520 bishops whom you guided, as the head guides the members." (Council of Chalcedon to Pope Leo.)


"Thereafter being inspired by the Holy Ghost, and all agreeing and consenting together, and giving our approval to the doctrinal letter of our most blessed and exalted pope, Agatho, which he sent to your mightiness..." (III Council of Constantinople, Prosphoneticus to the Emperor.)

"Paschasinus and Lucentius the most reverend bishops and Boniface a presbyter, vicars of the Apostolic See of Rome, said: If they do not agree to the letter of that apostolic and blessed man, Pope Leo, give directions that we be given our letters of dismission, and let a synod be held there [i. e. in the West]." (Council of Chalcedon, Session V.)

"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent... but neither let him (who is first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity...” (Apostolic Canon 34)

“...as if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them: ‘Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed’” (Augustine, Letter 43:19).

We shouldn't balk from re-breathing Orthodox life into the above terms so badly abused by post-schism Rome which it transformed into papal supremacy and infallibility - official RC documents suffice to show the discrepancy:

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered (CCC #882).

“there is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff”  (Code of Canons of the Eastern [Catholic] Churches #45.3 & Roman Code of Canon Law #333.3).  

« Last Edit: December 14, 2003, 08:27:57 AM by Byzantino » Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #246 on: December 14, 2003, 09:23:42 AM »

It's unthinkable that a team of Orthodox Bishops would just sit in silence in an Ecumenical Council throughout the reading of a Bishop's self-aggrandizing letter had it contained unorthodox contents in any way, the same Ecumenical Council where bishops were quick to utter "heresy! anathema!" at any deviation in the faith. I think around this time East and West were no longer interpreting the lanuage of Papal Primacy harmoniously; it was only a short time later, when Rome's pseudo-Isidorean inspired definition of Primacy was translated into action, that the trouble began; this occurred under Pope Nicholas.

Hiya

I'm not really trying to go as far as saying that the Pope of Rome was not considered to have an honorary primacy and was usually kept in the loop when things were happening. But I think you have got the issue right in your passage above. The bishops of the East could put up with a whole lot of Roman self aggrandisement, but they never allowed it to be translated into action.

I find the attitude of the Papal legates at Chalcedon to bear witness to the mistaken Roman attitude. In fact as Fr John Romanides of blessed memory is keen to point out, the bishops at Chalcedon went through the Tome to see if they agreed with it, and in fact when it was first read out some bishops shouted out that it was Nestorian. There was no simple acceptance of it, it was accepted BECAUSE the bishops in council decided it was consistent with their understanding of the faith.

The same happens with Ephesus I, the bishops right to the Pope to keep him in the loop and use high flown language but they say that they went carefully through his letter and accepted it because it agreed with what they had already decided.

Can we find places where the Pope of Rome said something should happen and it did even though people disagreed? I am trying to think of events and can only think of those periods when Eastern emperors were trying to regain control in the West and needed papal support.

Otherwise we find the Pope's opinions often respected, often consistent with what councils are already determining, but equally often completely ignored and Popes even put in prison.

It doesn't matter how many letters we find addressing the Pope as head of the Church if he was never allowed to act as Head of the Church. St Photius shows the limits of the primacy. It is a place of honour at the councils, it is being kept in the loop, it is being allowed to advise. But the canons never give the Pope jurisdiction, they only allow in disputed disciplinary matters that the Pope may be appealed to so that he might recommend a new enquiry be established by neighbouring patriarchs, never even that the Pope be allowed to be judge.

As far as Orthodox are concerned there is no Pope of Rome so I do find the argument rather moot from an Orthodox perspective and I'm not clear why Orthodox here are pushing primacy. What's your interest?

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #247 on: December 14, 2003, 09:26:58 AM »

It's unthinkable that a team of Orthodox Bishops would just sit in silence in an Ecumenical Council throughout the reading of a Bishop's self-aggrandizing letter had it contained unorthodox contents in any way, the same Ecumenical Council where bishops were quick to utter "heresy! anathema!" at any deviation in the faith. I think around this time East and West were no longer interpreting the lanuage of Papal Primacy harmoniously; it was only a short time later, when Rome's pseudo-Isidorean inspired definition of Primacy was translated into action, that the trouble began; this occurred under Pope Nicholas.


Hiya again

Would you also say then that the 1848 and 1895 encyclicals are error? Surely an encyclical produced by all of the EO Patriarchs and many bishops must have authority in Eastern Orthodoxy? It is the next best thing to an ecumenical statement. If these bishops and patriarchs are wrong then what are the implications?

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #248 on: December 14, 2003, 11:16:21 AM »

I don't want to start sounding hectoring or labouring a point so I think I'll bow out a bit on this thread and find some books to read around the subject. I will be posting again but I feel I am merely sharing my ignorance. If I find some good books I'' mention them and if anyone has some useful suggestions I'll take note of them

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #249 on: December 14, 2003, 05:42:01 PM »

Why did the Fathers assembled at the Fifth Ecumenical Council write a letter to Pope St. Agatho and refer to him as "venerable and sacred head"?

"Up to now grief, sorrow, and many tears have been our portion. For we cannot laugh at the fall of our neighbours, nor exult with joy at their unbridled madness, nor have we been elated that we might fall all the more grievously because of this thing; not thus, O venerable and sacred head, have we been taught, we who hold Christ, the Lord of the universe, to be both benign and man-loving in the highest degree; for he exhorts us to be imitators of him in his priesthood so far as is possible, as becometh the good, and to obtain the pattern of his pastoral and conciliatory government" (Letter from the Fifth Ecumenical Council to Pope St. Agatho).

Why did they make statements like this one from Session VII of the council?

"The holy Synod said: What has seemed good to the most pious Emperor is congruous to the labours which he bears for the unity of the churches. Let us preserve unity to (ad) the Apostolic See of the most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying out all things according to the tenor of what has been read."
« Last Edit: December 14, 2003, 05:42:42 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #250 on: December 14, 2003, 06:04:51 PM »

I do not think any term of address can be used to define doctrine. Nestorius is reverend and fellow-minister, he wasn't.

A judge is 'your worship' but I don't worship him.

We cannot take ancient terms of address and assume we know what they mean. We certainly can't assume that we understand 1500 year old terms of address better than all the EO patriarchs.

But I do not wish to start irritating you and I do feel we are getting into a Protestant mindset of assuming that 'our' readings of texts, either way. are the correct ones.

I need to go do some wider reading.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #251 on: December 14, 2003, 07:05:33 PM »

Pete,

I'll take a read of the encyclicals and get back to you.

I was doing some reading of Pope St. Gregory the Great's epistles and came across this passage:

“But since I, unworthy and weak, have taken charge of an old and grievously shattered ship (for on all sides the waves enter, and the planks, battered by a daily and violent storm, sound of shipwreck), I beseech thee by Almighty God to stretch out the hand of thy prayer to me in this my danger, since thou canst pray the more strenuously as thou standest further removed from the confusion of the tribulations which we suffer in this land.” (Pope St. Gregory the Great, Book I, Epistle 4, to John Patriarch of Constantinople.)

It's important to note the symbolism he uses to describe the Church as a ship, which he has taken charge of. Of course i'm totally in agreement with the facts of Chalcedon that you noted; i provided quotes to demonstrate that the Pope's doctrinal decrees, although bearing the most prestigious witness, were not decisive. This is the context in which we should understand "Head of the Church." The Primacy is one of universal love, sacrifice and solicitude, bearing the witness of the Apostle Peter. What it is not is universal jurisdiction, supremacy and infallibilty.

« Last Edit: December 14, 2003, 07:06:38 PM by Byzantino » Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #252 on: December 14, 2003, 07:12:59 PM »

Hi Byzantino

I do agree. I think I hesitate to start legislating or defining what a 'primacy of love' looks like. That seems altogether a post-Schism Western way of doing things.

It is almost as though I feel that anyone who insists on headship has automatically failed to find that 'primacy of love'. Whereas a truly great Pope such as Pope Gregory expresses that love, that humility, in so many of his letters are writings. I almost sense that to define 'primacy' is to miss the point entirely.

But I will try to find some other Eastern Orthodox writings on the subject. Certainly my discoveries in the OO fathers present the rock of Peter as his confession and do not allow him any jurisdiction, which is the position of the encyclicals.

On that issue, how would an EO apporach an encyclical of all the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs? How much authority should such a document have since it is essentially ecumenical in scope.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #253 on: December 14, 2003, 11:12:27 PM »

I do not think any term of address can be used to define doctrine. Nestorius is reverend and fellow-minister, he wasn't.

A judge is 'your worship' but I don't worship him.

We cannot take ancient terms of address and assume we know what they mean. We certainly can't assume that we understand 1500 year old terms of address better than all the EO patriarchs.

But I do not wish to start irritating you and I do feel we are getting into a Protestant mindset of assuming that 'our' readings of texts, either way. are the correct ones.

I need to go do some wider reading.

PT

Well, "head" or "head of all the churches" is not something we see addressed to any bishop other than the Bishop of Rome, and it certainly does not seem to be merely a polite form of address.

When Nestorius was addressed as a "fellow minister, etc." he still was. He had not yet been formally deposed and so was entitled to courteous address befitting his rank as Patriarch of Constantinople.

As Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius was entitled to be addressed in the customary way one addressed a high-ranking bishop. After his disgrace and deposition, he was no longer addressed in the same way, but was referred to as an arch-heretic and a heresiarch.

Nestorius was addressed properly while still Patriarch of Constantinople. The words used by St. Cyril to address him were, as far as anyone knew for sure, still true. No hyperbole was used, no falsehood perpetrated.

Should we expect something different when it comes to the way the popes were addressed? Were they called "successor of Peter" and "head of all the churches" out of mere politeness or pious hyperbole?

Was that the way one customarily addressed just any bishop?



 

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #254 on: December 14, 2003, 11:15:44 PM »

Correction.

In a prior post I remarked that the church of Byzantium was not of apostolic foundation.

That was an error.

Apparently it was actually founded by St. Peter's brother, St. Andrew.

Thanks, Aristokles, for that information, once again proving that I, for one, am not infallible.  Grin
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #255 on: December 14, 2003, 11:51:25 PM »

Hi Pete,

I read the 1848 Encyclical of the Orthodox Patriarchs and found everything i've been writing so far completely in accordance with it. I found the most prominent parts of the Encyclical in regards the point in question to be these:


"-º15. But, finally, his Holiness says (p. ix. l.12) that the fourth Ecumenical Council (which by mistake he quite transfers from Chalcedon to Carthage), when it read the epistle of Pope Leo I, cried out, "Peter has thus spoken by Leo." It was so indeed. But his Holiness ought not to overlook how, and after what examination, our fathers cried out, as they did, in praise of Leo. Since however his Holiness, consulting brevity, appears to have omitted this most necessary point, and the manifest proof that an Ecumenical Council is not only above the Pope but above any Council of his, we will explain to the public the matter as it really happened. Of more than six hundred fathers assembled in the Counci1 of Chalcedon, about two hundred of the wisest were appointed by the Council to examine both as to language and sense the said epistle of Leo; nor only so, but to give in writing and with their signatures their own judgment upon it, whether it were orthodox or not. These, about two hundred judgments and resolution on the epistle, as chiefly found in the Fourth Session of the said holy Council in such terms as the following:—"Maximus of Antioch in Syria said: 'The epistle of the holy Leo, Archbishop of Imperial Rome, agrees with the decisions of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers at Nice, and the hundred and fifty at Constantinople, which is new Rome, and with the faith expounded at Ephesus by the most holy Bishop Cyril: and I have subscribed it."

"And thus all in succession: "The epistle corresponds," "the epistle is consonant,"the epistle agrees in sense," and the like. After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which his Holiness now vaunts himself"

"...yet are we convinced from the words of our LORD, that the time will come when that divine prayer concerning the denial of Peter, "that his faith might not fail for ever" will operate also in some one of the successors of his Throne, who will also weep, as he did, bitterly, and being sometime converted will strengthen us, his brethren, still more in the Orthodox Confession, which we hold from our forefathers;—and would that his Holiness might be this true successor of the blessed Peter!"

"We see that very primacy, for which his Holiness now contends with all his might, as did his predecessors, transformed from a brotherly character and hierarchical privilege into a lordly superiority."


"And surely we have a right to expect from the prudent forethought of his Holiness, a work so worthy the true successor of St. Peter, of Leo I, and also of Leo III, who for security of the orthodox faith engraved the divine Creed unaltered upon imperishable plates"


In a nutshell, the Patriarchs confirm that the Pope of Rome is Peter's successor, he is called to imitate his vicar in his repentance and tears, the Pope's doctrinal decrees are always subservient to the Ecumenical Council, and the Primacy can never have an absolutist/dictatorial character. We could, as you imply, take an apophatic approach and say what the Primacy is not, and i think Linus and yourself are well aware and in agreement with that.


Byz
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #256 on: December 15, 2003, 12:23:00 AM »

Hi Linus,
So how much longer do you think it will be before you decide to join The Catholic (Roman) Church? It sounds like you are quite close.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #257 on: December 15, 2003, 01:07:34 AM »

"I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever? But, granting the difference in the dignity of their sees, yet they have the same glory in their martyrdom" (St. Augustine; On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book II, Chapter 1).

"As therefore they have remained in their perversity cut off from the body of the Church, while Peter has been crowned in the primacy of the apostles through the glory of martyrdom, so these men, while Cyprian, through the abundance of his love, has been received into the portion of the saints through the brightness of his passion, are obliged to recognize themselves as exiles from unity, and, in defence of their calumnies, set up a citizen of unity as an opponent against the very home of unity" (Ibid, Book VII, Chapter 1).

"So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troublous life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship" (St. Augustine, Lectures on the Gospel of St. John; Tractate CXXIV, Chapter XXI).

"For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on account of the primacy(22) which he bore among the Disciples; as it is written, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,"(23) and other passages of the like purport: so Judas doth represent those Jews who were enemies of Christ, who both then hated Christ, and now, in their line of succession, this species of wickedness continuing, hate Him" (St. Augustine, Homilies on the Psalms, Psalm LXXVII).

"When therefore we see so great help of God, so great progress and fruit, shall we doubt to hide ourselves in the bosom of that Church, which even unto the confession of the human race from [the] apostolic chair(1) through successions Of Bishops,(2) (heretics in vain lurking around her and being condemned, partly by the judgment of the very people, partly by the weight of councils, partly also by the majesty of miracles,) hath held the summit of authority. To be unwilling to grant to her the first place,(3) is either surely the height of impiety, or is headlong arrogance" (St. Augustine, On the Profit of Believing).


All underlining is mine.



Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #258 on: December 15, 2003, 01:13:55 AM »

Quote
Byzantino: In a nutshell, the Patriarchs confirm that the Pope of Rome is Peter's successor, he is called to imitate his vicar in his repentance and tears, the Pope's doctrinal decrees are always subservient to the Ecumenical Council, and the Primacy can never have an absolutist/dictatorial character. We could, as you imply, take an apophatic approach and say what the Primacy is not, and i think Linus and yourself are well aware and in agreement with that.


Byz

Thanks for taking a closer look at that 1848 encyclical. I meant to do so but put it off.

I did not think Orthodox patriarchs would or could deny that the bishops of Rome were St. Peter's successors.

Anyway, excellent post!  Cool
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #259 on: December 15, 2003, 01:16:51 AM »

Hi Linus,
So how much longer do you think it will be before you decide to join The Catholic (Roman) Church? It sounds like you are quite close.
Peace,
Polycarp

Oh, man!

I pray for the reunion of the apostolic churches - all of them.

I am not arguing for the RCC here; I am arguing for an accurate and fair look at the office of Bishop of Rome.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #260 on: December 15, 2003, 01:18:08 AM »

Polycarp,

It's odd that you think acknowledging the Primacy of the Pope entails becoming Roman Catholic. Linus, like myself, has been vouching for Papal Primacy, not the distortions of it (papal infallibility or universal jurisdiction.)
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #261 on: December 15, 2003, 01:25:19 AM »

Thanks Linus, It's great knowing that there are others out there who follow the spirit of Orthodoxy and especially the example given by our Fathers of antiquity and of late, such as John Meyendorff and Alexander Schmemann. The scholars who had no anti-Latin axe to grind were the ones that convinced me most to become Orthodox. I'm also sure our approach is the most conducive one to unity. God bless and keep it up, you're doing alot of good work here!

Byz

Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #262 on: December 15, 2003, 05:49:13 AM »

Hi Byz

I must admit to still having a great many problems. Not with the notional idea of a primacy of honour - which is a given. but with any idea that actually and doctrinally the Eastern Churches ever allowed a substantive headship to the Pope of Rome.

Surely such a major doctrine would have been legislated for and defined in canons all over the place. But there is a complete silence except for:

i. Canon V of Council of Sardica

Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right--that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.

Which does not establish a headship over the Church but allows that the Pope of Rome may ask the bishops of a region where there is a dispute to re-examine a case.

and

ii. Canon II of the Second Ecumenical Council

THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

which asserts the jurisdictional independence of each diocese.

Now the role envisaged by Sardica V seems entirely in accord with Orthodox ecclesiology and allows for a seniority of the bishop of Rome, which I think is mistakenly translated into modern English as headship which has overtones of authority.

My parents are still both alive, thank God. But when they do pass away I will become, in some sense, the head of the family by being the eldest son. It seems to me that I could rightly be called the 'head of the family' but this does not mean in any sense whatsoever 'the ruler of the family'. My brothers and sisters will continue to be completely my equals in all things. I cannot interfere in their family lives. I cannot tell them what they should do. But I would have a responsibility and a duty to try to keep aware of what was happening with them, try to offer them help and support as they required it, try to keep the family together. But I would have no authority and no jurisdiction at all. Only the power and authority of love.

I was reading the letters between St Cyril and Sixtus of Rome. And also those between Sixtus and John of Antioch who had been excommunicate. What is noteworthy is that Sixtus seems to have a much more equal relationship with St Cyril - as one would expect since St Cyril is a towering figure, than he does with John of Antioch for whom he pulls out all of the language of primacy.

He writes about the Council of Ephesus and says:

"Christ, our God, saw fit .... to arrange matters in such a way that he reserved the nature of so great a matter for the gathering of his bishops. The Apostles when gathered together in one group often dealt with matters concerning the faith; and now the successors of the Apostles, coming together in one group, give solemn thanks for the victory of faith."

and Sixtus speaks with words such as 'supporting', 'sustaining' 'approving' and 'confirming'.

and he writes to St Cyril in another letter saying:

"For the universal Church  owes you so much, that all are under your control, you who have conquered all men everywhere."

This seems to me to be the right exercise of the spiritual elder brotherhood. He is well aware that St Cyril needs to lectures from him. He is well aware that in his time it is St Cyril who is the great mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit. I can find no mention of headship, and even when he speaks of St Peter and the honour of his See, Sixtus is explicit that he is not Peter, but rather St Peter prays for him and his synod in Rome. There is no overblown sense of primacy - and the Scripture is plain 'he who would be first must be the servant of all'.

John of Antioch had written to Sixtus and in his greeting had described him as "presiding in the Apostolic See for the welfare of the human race". John of Antioch was willing to eat plenty of humble pie at this point to restore communion but he does not go beyond what is proper. Sixtus does preside in the Apostolic See but he does not 'preside' over the whole Church in any jurisdictional sense. Rather, from his position as bishop of Rome, and only bishop of Rome, he has the care of an elder brother for the Church. he does not 'preside over the Church'.

John of Antioch describes Sixtus as a light-bearer for the Church, but Sixtus turns the compliment around and says that John, like all the faithful bishops, is now also a light-bearer.

Sixtus, like St Gregory seems to appreciate the 'elder brotherhood' of the Church of Rome.

This is a primacy i can accept as being consistent with Orthodox ecclesiology.

But again, when and if I become the 'head of the family' what is the content of my ministry? I am not convinced it can be written down. It is clear what it is not, and the heart knows when it is being exercised. Pope Sixtus never writes to St Cyril complaining that Alexandrian liturgical practices must always be in uniformity with his own, as Leo of Rome does.

I find the very terms 'headship' and 'primacy' to have been tainted by a too many centuries of wrong ecclesiology. They can hardly be used without some reference to jurisdiction, and the Pope of Rome has no jurisdiction at all, as St Photius makes clear. But I believe after reading what we have been posting, that 'elder brotherhood' is a sense of what is in accord with Orthodox ecclesiology.

But I have some other issues:

I accept the posting from the 1848 encyclical in the sense of the primacy I have described above. But the encyclical seems to me to be absolutely clear when it says:

"But our divine Fathers, with one accord, teach that the sense of the thrice-repeated command, Feed my sheep, implied no prerogative in St. Peter over the other Apostles, least of all in his successors."

and

"Here is nothing said of the Pope's special monopoly of the Apostolicity of St. Peter, still less of a vicarship in Rome's Bishops, and an universal Pastorate. This deep silence in regard to such great privileges—nor only so, but the reason assigned for the primacy, not "Feed my sheep," not "On this rock will I build my Church," but simply old Custom, and the City being the Imperial City; and these things, not from the LORD, but from the Fathers—will seem, we are sure, a great paradox to his Holiness entertaining other ideas of his prerogatives. "

This seems to clearly deny that Rome is especially the 'Apostolic See', and to conclude from the Fathers that it is custom and the Imperial nature of Rome which made it the seat of primacy. Indeed the Patriarchs and bishops also conclude that the Eastern Churches regularly appealed to Constantinople for advice and support since that had also become the Imperial City.

I'll be happy accepting an 'elder brotherhood' of Rome if you will consider that the primacy is due to the Imperial nature of these cities, and is therefore provisional.

Because I have another issue:

If Rome is by nature, rather than politics, the 'head of the Church', then what does this mean for Orthodoxy? Are you suggesting that Orthodoxy is deficient? Surely this position is itself not Orthodox. What I mean is, that the fact that Orthodox Churches have not needed Rome for at least 1000 years suggests that the primacy of Rome is not onotlogical but economical. And if we disagree with the Patriarchs who teach that the primacy of Rome is economical then where does that leave the authority of Patiarchs and bishops?

Surely most Orthodox writers consider that the 'elder brotherhood' devolved to Constantinople when Rome fell away? That being so I am not clear what the end is with an Orthodox discussion of the primacy of Rome. There is no Rome to have the primacy and there has not been for 1000 years. That primacy is now Constantinoples, and as the Patriarchs say, this is because it was also the Imperial City. And there has been talk for years of the primacy moving to Moscow - the Third Rome, or even to New York. Because it is a matter of economy not of some inherent nature of Rome.

What if a new Orthodox bishop of Rome were consecrated by one of the Orthodox Churches. It seems to me to be a defective ecclesiology that would accord him the 'elder brotherhood'. It would seem to me to be an example of that antiquarian approach which Orthodox are often accused of. There is no Orthodox Rome and what it is now is a city among cities in a Europe of many more important cities. Brussels would be a location more in consonance with the teaching of the Patriarchs.

If the aim of the discussion is to be fair to Roman Catholics then I am all for that. But Pope John Paul II is not the head of the Church in waiting. Just as it would be foolish for the two Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria to argue over who was really the Patriarch of Libya and the Pentapolis since there is no Church left in those places.

Surely we should be looking at the EP if we are discussing Orthodox headship in the Church. He is the heir to all the titles that were used by the Pope of Rome. How is he treated? What authority does he have? What jurisdiction? We have a live example to consider rather than the hypothetical one of the situation if the Roman patriarchate had nto fallen away 1000 years ago.

If Orthodoxy needs a Pope of Rome then Orthodoxy is deficient. If it does not need a Pope of Rome but needs an 'elder brother' then the EP is that 'elder brother'.

I hope I don't have an anti-Latin axe to grind. I was greatly helped on my pilgrimage by Roman Catholic writers.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #263 on: December 15, 2003, 08:53:49 AM »

Hello Peter,

You've given practically nothing to disagree with you about!  Cheesy

1. Jurisdictional independence is what i was implying by rejecting universal jurisdiction.

2. The analogy you gave:

Quote
I cannot interfere in their family lives. I cannot tell them what they should do. But I would have a responsibility and a duty to try to keep aware of what was happening with them, try to offer them help and support as they required it, try to keep the family together. But I would have no authority and no jurisdiction at all. Only the power and authority of love.
Quote

I couldn't have put it better - power and authority of love and solicitude, free of the authoritarian and juridical character which Rome has distorted it into - authority, not authoritarianism, showing respect for the full autonomy of each See. Pope John Paul II himself has expressed the necessity to eschew universal jurisdiction if any hopes for reunion are to be kept alive.

3. I too acknowledge that primacy was allocated according to the city's status in the Empire. The Canons are clear on this point. I'll also add that Rome was honoured with the presence of Sts. Peter and Paul, which factor clearly added to her prestigious place.

4. On the succession of St. Peter: there's no getting around the fact that the Bishop of Rome was gradually identified as Peter's successor and inherited the charism of his witness in addition to the pastoral care of St. Paul. Yet despite the fact of Rome's falling from grace, in past and present times her Bishop was still identified as Peter's successor albeit imperfectly and fallen: the Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras addressed Pope Paul VI as the "elder brother," so too did Patriarch Bartholemew to Pope John Paul II, "the bishop of the first see of Rome with whom we are in a communion of love." But, Orthodoxy has also made repeated exhortations, past and present, for the Bishop of Rome to imitate his successor by his repentance and tears for the innovations his church has produced since the schism. The absence of Rome by no means implies that Orthodoxy is somehow lacking or diminished in grace, but the power of our witness to the world would be bolstered immensely if we were a unified Church once more. This leads me to my next point. Although the Primacy was formulated according to the conditions already outlined, it's very difficult to expunge from the consciousness of Orthodoxy the equation of primacy with Rome. As I quoted above, the Pope has been referred to as the "elder brother" despite the fact that we don't enjoy full communion. Should Rome return to Orthodoxy it would seem unlikely to me that the primacy would not return to Rome; many a Byzantine Father has made it the reward for returning to Orthodoxy. If it was up to me i'd allocate the Primacy to the Bishop of Melbourne, but i would hesitate to say that the restored spiritual presence of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome would not also be a significant factor in assigning that Primacy.

"When the Latins affirm that the bishop of Rome is the first, they shouldnot be contradicted....Let them but show us that he remains in the faith of Peter and his successors, that he possesses what comes from Peter, then he will be the first, the chief shepherd and head of all, the supreme Pontiff....If there should come such a one as resembles [the popes of the early Church] by the creed, by his life, by the morals of orthodoxy, he will be our common Father. We will take him to be our Peter, and the bonds of union will last forever." (Symeon of Thessalonika)

That's all for now.

Cheers!

Byz


« Last Edit: December 15, 2003, 08:56:17 AM by Byzantino » Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #264 on: December 15, 2003, 09:24:34 AM »

Hi Byz

I must admit to still having a great many problems. Not with the notional idea of a primacy of honour - which is a given. but with any idea that actually and doctrinally the Eastern Churches ever allowed a substantive headship to the Pope of Rome.

Surely such a major doctrine would have been legislated for and defined in canons all over the place. PT


PT,

I feel the same way.  I have read through these posting and gave much thought to what has been written, and I am still not convinced.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #265 on: December 15, 2003, 09:32:15 AM »

A good post Byzantino

I find we are rapidly moving towards concurrence.  Smiley

I still have some slight hesitancy about Patriarch Athenagoras calling Pope Paul VI 'elder brother'. I am not anti-Latin. I am not anti-EP. I am not even an anti-ecumenist when we are talking about the right type of ecumenism. But the RC, as far as I can see, is not merely separated from Orthodoxy by historical circumstances which only had force in the past, surely the doctrinal innovations have made the RC doctrinal system deficient as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, however much we respect our RC brethren.

But I will not labour that point. But rather say,

"Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad" for the middle wall of partition has been taken away, and grief has been silenced, and all kind of difference of opinion has been removed.  Wink

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #266 on: December 15, 2003, 09:49:39 AM »


I am not arguing for the RCC here; I am arguing for an accurate and fair look at the office of Bishop of Rome.

...when the Bishop of Rome was "Orthodox", of course.

Nothing wrong with a correct view of history, if such a view clearly exists or can be discerned.

Demetri
« Last Edit: December 15, 2003, 09:53:15 AM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #267 on: December 15, 2003, 11:05:27 AM »


I am not arguing for the RCC here; I am arguing for an accurate and fair look at the office of Bishop of Rome.

...when the Bishop of Rome was "Orthodox", of course.

Nothing wrong with a correct view of history, if such a view clearly exists or can be discerned.

Demetri

I thought I made that clear when I wrote, "I am not arguing for the RCC here."

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #268 on: December 15, 2003, 11:08:52 AM »

I thought I made that clear when I wrote, "I am not arguing for the RCC here."

I appreciate that. But which Pope of Rome are you arguing should have primacy since the Western patriarchate disappeared and no longer exists from an Orthodox perspective.

PT
« Last Edit: December 15, 2003, 11:09:20 AM by peterfarrington » Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #269 on: December 15, 2003, 11:47:17 AM »

Peter, Linus,

Quote
I appreciate that. But which Pope of Rome are you arguing should have primacy since the Western patriarchate disappeared and no longer exists from an Orthodox perspective.

This is a good point.  For example, let's say an Orthodox Bishop was installed in Rome sometime in the next few years (not talking about this current RC Pope, or whoever his next successor will be, but someone put there by a group of Orthodox Bishops) - would he inherit all of the things Linus is offering an apologia for?

Seraphim
« Last Edit: December 15, 2003, 11:48:00 AM by Seraphim Reeves » Logged

Tags: papal primacy Primacy of Peter Petrine Primacy That Irenaeus quote 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.182 seconds with 72 queries.