gbtmtmas:
When you keep emphasizing on this "primacy of honor" business (when responding to statements I have made), when I, in fact, have not even mentioned a "primacy of honor."I would highly recommend that you re-read my original statement.
I still do not believe I put words in your mouth. But suit yourself.
gbmtmas: I wrote:
My view of the primacy that the Roman Catholic Papacy held is more akin to the Orthodox Fathers of the 12th through 15th centuries, rather than that of modern polemicists.
As you can see Linus7, the subject of my original statement is the Orthodox Fathers of the 12th through 15th centuries--not the Roman Catholic Papacy of that time. I believe that a discussion of the Orthodox Fathers' views of that time is relevant--hence, I find your response perplexing.
I would venture to say that much of what the Orthodox Fathers of the 12th - 15th centuries thought of the papacy was conditioned by the papacy as they knew it - in their own lifetimes.
How better to understand the role of the papacy in the early Church: through those Fathers (including some who were popes) who were part of the early Church, or through Fathers of the Middle Ages, removed by centuries from the subject in question?
gbmtmas: Also, as a sidenote: I say "Roman Catholic Papacy" to distinguish from "Alexandrian Papacy" (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian accord this title to their respective Alexandrian hierarchs). As you know, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church is not the only one who claims, or has been legitimately accorded the title of "Pope" in Church history.
If you say that is why you so labeled it, I must accept it. It seemed to me that you were using "Roman Catholic" as a perjorative modifier of "Papacy" in order to discredit it.
The word
Papacy would have been sufficient, since to most people it is the Pope of Rome that comes to mind when that word is used.
Lesser-knowns require modifiers to correctly identify them.
gbmtmas: Again, as before, I have asked you to elaborate on your particular view of the early Church's view of the Roman Papacy. I would be particularly interested in what you mean by this ever-ubiquitous "primacy of honor" or "honorific authority" that you keep using.
As I understand honorific primacy as it is used regarding the bishops of Rome, it means being accorded the first place of honor (e.g., the chief seat at councils, etc.) but no actual executive authority or jurisidiction beyond the Roman diocese itself.
An honorary "head of the Church" is certainly not the same thing as a real head of the Church.
gbtmas: I cannot respond to that which is not defined. We may agree. We may not agree; however, that remains to be seen until more clarity is apparent. Before any good discussion can ensue, each party must define its terminology, since we may associate different meanings/backgrounds/contexts to the exact same terminology.Yes. You made that abundantly clear. However, your response to me indicates that you have not read my response to you--which did not accuse or infer that you were a defender of Roman Catholicism's view of their Papacy.
Sure it did.
You provided arguments that are used to attack papal infallibility (the "waffling" of Vigilius, etc.).
Such arguments have little or no bearing on what I wrote.
gbmtmas: Let me provide you with my original response in case you overlooked it:
I have no idea what your view of the Roman Papacy is. After having read all of this thread, it seems that you don’t agree with some of the conclusions of “Orthodox anti-RCC polemicists”, while at the same time you seem to have indicated that the current Roman Catholic claims regarding their Papacy are perhaps exaggerated. Yet, in this entire thread, I have not seen your view of the Roman Catholic Papacy articulated - except in a context of what you don’t believe. Perhaps you could share what, precisely you believe regarding the Roman Catholic Papacy, it’s relation to St. Peter, your understanding of primacy, and perhaps what you agree/disagree with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy?
I read it the first time.
I was not trying to articulate a view of the "Roman Catholic Papacy." I was discussing the
Catholic Papacy or rather the primacy of the pre-Schism bishops of Rome.
"Roman Catholic" is a post-Schism identifier that is not relevant to our discussion. There was no Roman Catholic Church during the period we are discussing, just as there was no Eastern Orthodox Church.
No one was confused and thought we were talking about the Coptic Pope.
gbmtmas: Now, how did my original statement merit your loaded response?
Original statement or condescending tone (also present in your last post - the one I'm presently quoting )?
gbmtmas: After having read your response, it has become apparent that now may not be the time for a discussion on this topic--given the amount of volatile energy "in the air."
You are quite right.
Besides that, I don't have the free time to do this topic justice.
gbmtmas: However, earlier, when I recommended reading scholarly works rather than polemical works--I meant it. If you're interested, here is a list of some relevant books (both pro- and con) that may help provide you with a knowledge base (if all you've read are polemics).
Nice superior tone.
And you are perplexed at the "volatile energy in the air"?
gbmtmas:
---The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Luna Printing Company, New York, 1983 (an absolute must!)
---The Primacy of Peter, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press
---The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, Aristideis Papadakis, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press
---Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine, J. E. Merdinger, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1997
---The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, 1991
---The Photian Schism--History and Legend, Fr. Francis Dvornik, Cambridge, 1948
---Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, F. Dvornik, Fordham University Press, New York, 1966
---Imperial Unity and Christian Division, Father John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, 1989
---After Nine Hundred Years, Yves Congar, Fordham University, New York, 1959
---Tradition and Traditions, Yves Congar, Macmillan, New York, 1966
---Documents Illustrating Papal Authority, E. Giles, based on Hefele 3:315, SPCK, London, 1952
---The Eastern Churches and the Papacy, S. Herbert Scott, Sheed & Ward, London, 1928
---The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, F.W. Puller, Longmans, London, 1893
---John Chrysostom and His Time, Dom Chrysostumus Baur, O.S.B., Newman, Westminster, 1959
---History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, Eerdmans, 1910
---Oxford Dictionary of Popes, J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996
---Studies on the Early Papacy, Dom John Chapman, Kennikat Press, Port Washington, 1928
Given the caustic direction that this discussion has headed, however, I am withdrawing from the thread for now.
Sigh . . .
I think withdrawing from this thread is a good idea.
