Author Topic: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy  (Read 8129 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline OnThePathForward

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« on: July 22, 2010, 10:55:18 PM »
Hi everyone,

As my wife and I are now catechumen within the Eastern Orthodox Church (OCA) (we are leaving the Roman Catholic Church), I am still pondering in my mind a number of issues that I feel I need to better understand.  One is the primacy of St. Peter and how this relates to the Roman Catholic Church. 

I've been digging all around the internet to try and better understand the Roman Catholic position on the Pope being the Head of the entire Christian Church.  I must say, that these thoughts and ideas here are not all my own and I have attempted to give proper reference where I can.  I simply wanted to put this post together to help gather all the information pertinent to this issue.  I want to thank ialmisry, Irish Hermit, among others who I have referenced in this post.  Your insightful information is amazing and truly appreciated.

So here we go...

If we accept the Roman Catholic position that the Bishop of Rome (Pope) is infallible and has jurisdiction over the entire Christian Church, then we must be able to answer in the affirmative of the following Roman Catholics beliefs that:

[ialmisry previously posted seven of these points (I added #3 into the mix).

1) Our Lord gave St. Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

2) Due to this, St. Peter was the Head of the Apostles.

3) That Jesus Christ built His Church on the 'rock', which is St. Peter.

4) St. Peter founded the Church of Rome.

5) That the Church of Rome retains exclusive possession of the Keys of St. Peter.

6) That the Pope of Rome alone has the authority that St. Peter had through the Power of the Keys.

7) That St. Peter alone has that authority, thus has supremacy over the Church.

So, let's look at each of these statements:

1) Our Lord gave St. Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, - 'whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven' (Matthew 16:19).

Accurate: Yes

2) Due to the above, St. Peter was the Head of the Apostles:

Matthew 20:25 - 20:27:

25 However, Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and great ones make their authority felt.
26 But it shall not be so among you! Instead, whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.
27 Whoever desires to be first among you shall be your servant, even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

Luke 22:24 - 22:27

24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest.
25 And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.'
26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.
27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.

Mark 10:35 - 10:45

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask."
36 And He said to them, "What do you want Me to do for you?"
37 They said to Him, "Grant us that we may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on Your left, in Your glory."
38 But Jesus said to Them, "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to Drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"
39 They said to Him, "We are able." So Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink the cup that I drink, and with the baptism I am baptized wit you will be baptized;
40 but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared."
41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be greatly displeased with James and John.
42 But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
43 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.
44 And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all.
45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Accurate: Per Jesus Christ's statements, St. Peter was an equal among the Apostles, not the Head of the Apostles.

3) St. Peter is the 'rock' in Matthew 16:18, which Jesus will build His Church?

Let's now look at Matthew 16:15 - 16:19:

15 Jesus then said to them, "But [you], who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!"
17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 I also tell you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hades will not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven."

When looking at how the Early Christen Fathers, Archbishop Kenrik notes that there are five interpretations of this Matthew 16:18 (Irish Hermit from orthodoxchristianity.net provided the below summary):

------------------------------------------------------------------
1...."That St. Peter is the Rock" is taught by seventeen (17) Church Fathers

2....That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock, represented by Peter as its chief, is taught by eight (8) Church Fathers

3....That St. Peter's faith is the Rock, is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers

4....That Christ is the Rock, is taught by sixteen (16) Church Fathers

5....That the rock is the whole body of the faithful. Archbp. Kenrick gives no figure.

Archbishop Kenrick summarizes:

"If we are bound to follow the greater number of Fathers in this matter,** then we must hold for certain that the word "Petra" means not Peter professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter."

**This is an important point by Archbishop Kenrick and it should be given its full weight. It is RC doctrine that where there is something disputed the choice must be made for the consensus of the Fathers, the consensus patrum.

You can look this up and check that I have it accurately in Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246'

As to who Archbishop Kenrick was. Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28803.msg454610.html#msg454610

Accurate: No.  As stated above, if Roman Catholicism uses 'consensus patrum' when dealing with the Early Christian Fathers, then clearly St. Peter's faith is the Rock, and not St. Peter himself.

4) St. Peter founded the Church of Rome -

Per the Apostolic Constitutions, St. Paul appointed the first Bishop of Rome: Linus.  The second bishop of Rome (Clemens) was then appointed by St. Peter.

Accurate: Possibly.  If anything, it was Sts. Paul and Peter who founded the Church of Rome together, unless you want to break it down by who actually appointed the first Bishop of Rome, in which case it would be St. Paul.

5) The Church of Rome retains exclusive possession of the Keys of St. Peter -

Accurate: No - the exclusive possession of the Keys of St. Peter must be shared by his successors.  This would at least include Antioch and Rome. St. Peter founded the Church of Antioch where he served for seven years beginning in the year AD 34 (http://www.antiochian.org/patofant), and then departed for Rome.

6) The Pope of Rome alone has the authority that St. Peter had through the Power of the Keys.

As stated above, this authority also rests with Antioch, as St. Peter's successors exist at this See as well.

Also of note is a letter written by Pope Gregory the Great:

Posted by DTK on puritanboard.com:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory the Great (Gregory I c. 540-603): Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19). And again it is said to him, And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (22:32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (John 21:17). Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee that they also may be one in us (John 17:21). NPNF2: Vol. XII, Selected Epistles, Book 7, Epistle 40 - To Eulogius, bishop.

William J. La Due on the quote above: Although his meaning is not entirely clear, Pope Gregory envisioned the see of Peter as being the principal see which gives firmness and stability to all the other churches. But he held to a threefold location [i.e., Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome] of the one chair of Peter, so that the one Petrine see seemed actually to be realized in three places—and that these three were somehow one. Save just for a couple of exceptions over his long pontificate, he never addressed any of the patriarchs in anything but a fraternal tone. He did not present himself as their superior, but as a brother, always sensitive to that special bond uniting the sees of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. William J. La Due, The Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1999), pp. 67-68.

Reference: http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/what-arguments-did-gregory-i-put-forward-primacy-pope-45787/
------------------------------------------------------------------

Accurate: No.

7) That St. Peter alone has that authority, thus has supremacy over the Church.

Matthew 18:15 - 18:20
Dealing with a brother who has sinned - The authority of the Church
15 "If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother!
16 But if he does not listen, take one or two more with you, so that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church. If he refuses to hear the Church also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.
18 Amen, I tell you that whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.
19 Again, I tell you that if two of you will agree on earth concerning anything they will ask, it will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven.
20 Indeed, where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there I am among them."

Matthew 18:18:

Amen, I tell you that whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.

Accurate: No.  Per Matthew 18:18, Jesus shared the the power of the Keys to bind and lose with all apostles, not solely St. Peter.

IN THE END, when looking back on all of this, if we accept a minority position of the Church Fathers that Peter is the Rock, and answer YES to Statement 3, then we again must review :

If St. Peter is the 'rock' upon which God build His Church, then where did St. Peter build His Church?

Answer: As stated above, Peter build the Church of Antioch and there for seven years and then went to Rome where he was martyred. 

Thus, if we ignore what Pope Gregory the Great has to say that the See of Peter in fact included three locations: Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome AND also ignore the fact that St. Peter established the Christian Church in Antioch and served there for seven years, then we might be able to believe that Rome has sole claim for Petrean Primacy.  And if we buy the argument that since St. Peter was martyred in Rome making Rome the sole successor of St. Peter, then we must acknowledge that if he had died on the street somewhere in a town as he was passing through then this place would today be the head of the Church...even though he had appointed actual successors in Antioch and in Rome.  I find this martyer location argument rather weak.

To me, St. Peter is an amazing person, just as the other Apostles, and for that matter other saints.  But I just do not see how the Vatican claims Roman/papal primacy over the entire Christian Church after reviewing the above information.

What am I missing?  Even if Peter is the Rock, again, Antioch has just as much claim as Rome does, if not more... I just do not get it.

Thank you for time and patience.
- OnThePathForward

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2010, 12:36:43 AM »
My first thought: some beliefs are bound to not be logically consistent. Perhaps this is an example.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,204
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2010, 12:52:32 AM »
^Nah.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2010, 01:37:23 AM »

5) That the Church of Rome retains exclusive possession of the Keys of St. Peter.


Hand with Keys stolen from statue of St. Peter at the Vatican

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The key-holding hand of a 13th-century statue of St. Peter Enthroned was stolen March 11 from the statue at the exit of the grotto under St. Peter's Basilica. The marble statue is dated between 1285-1290 and is attributed to Arnolfo di Cambio, the same artist to whom many scholars attribute the more famous bronze statue of St. Peter seated in the central nave of the basilica. The statue with the missing hand was restored in the late 1700s, and the stolen hand was a replacement copy of the damaged original, an official at the basilica said. The hand, which he said was of little monetary value, was connected to the wrist of the statue with a tight-fitting metal rod. According to the official, a Vatican guide said the statue still had both hands at 3:30 p.m.; the theft was discovered an hour later when a passing employee saw it was missing and alerted authorities.

The missing hand is rumoured to be doing the rounds of episcopal residences in Russia. For centuries the Russian episcopate has been peeved that its lines of apostolic succcesion stem only from James the Brother of the Lord and from Andrew the First-Called who is known to have paid an unexpected visit to southern Russia in A.D 65 when he was lost on a missionary journey to Scotland. His Holiness Patriarch Cellophane III of Moscow and All the Arbat is offering sub conditione consecrations with the Petrine hand to all members of his Synod. The required donation is small: an oil well in Kazakhstan or the deportation of two Polish clergymen. In time the Russian episcopate will be fully "petrified" and Cellophane is planning to declare himself urbi et orbi as the Russian Pope. The House of Fauberge is already commissioned to produce a magnificent tiara in time for Cellophane's enthronement.

When Novosti CIN and Ecumanic reporters queried the Pope of Rome on this surprising use of Peter's hand, the Pope said that he thought the hand been chewed off by rodents in the Vatican since he often lays awake at nights, disturbed by rats rustling. The Pope expressed concern that the Orthodox may misuse the keys which were in Peter's hand when it was stolen. 'They are,' he said, 'inclined to be too lenient with sinners. They'll be allowing all sorts of riff-raff through the heavenly gates."

Offline Thomas

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,995
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2010, 09:17:13 AM »
This topic was moved from Convert Issues Forum to the Orthodox -Roman Catholic Forum where it can be more fully discussed. Thanks for the use of quotations and citations, this always makes this type of discussion a quality posting.

Thomas
Convert Issues Forum Moderator
Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas

Offline Orthodoc

  • Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,526
  • Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2010, 03:13:20 PM »

5) That the Church of Rome retains exclusive possession of the Keys of St. Peter.


Hand with Keys stolen from statue of St. Peter at the Vatican

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The key-holding hand of a 13th-century statue of St. Peter Enthroned was stolen March 11 from the statue at the exit of the grotto under St. Peter's Basilica. The marble statue is dated between 1285-1290 and is attributed to Arnolfo di Cambio, the same artist to whom many scholars attribute the more famous bronze statue of St. Peter seated in the central nave of the basilica. The statue with the missing hand was restored in the late 1700s, and the stolen hand was a replacement copy of the damaged original, an official at the basilica said. The hand, which he said was of little monetary value, was connected to the wrist of the statue with a tight-fitting metal rod. According to the official, a Vatican guide said the statue still had both hands at 3:30 p.m.; the theft was discovered an hour later when a passing employee saw it was missing and alerted authorities.

The missing hand is rumoured to be doing the rounds of episcopal residences in Russia. For centuries the Russian episcopate has been peeved that its lines of apostolic succcesion stem only from James the Brother of the Lord and from Andrew the First-Called who is known to have paid an unexpected visit to southern Russia in A.D 65 when he was lost on a missionary journey to Scotland. His Holiness Patriarch Cellophane III of Moscow and All the Arbat is offering sub conditione consecrations with the Petrine hand to all members of his Synod. The required donation is small: an oil well in Kazakhstan or the deportation of two Polish clergymen. In time the Russian episcopate will be fully "petrified" and Cellophane is planning to declare himself urbi et orbi as the Russian Pope. The House of Fauberge is already commissioned to produce a magnificent tiara in time for Cellophane's enthronement.

When Novosti CIN and Ecumanic reporters queried the Pope of Rome on this surprising use of Peter's hand, the Pope said that he thought the hand been chewed off by rodents in the Vatican since he often lays awake at nights, disturbed by rats rustling. The Pope expressed concern that the Orthodox may misuse the keys which were in Peter's hand when it was stolen. 'They are,' he said, 'inclined to be too lenient with sinners. They'll be allowing all sorts of riff-raff through the heavenly gates."


Father:

Where is this from?  The Onion Dome?

Orthodoc
Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2010, 08:54:10 PM »
Father:

Where is this from?  The Onion Dome?

Orthodoc

The first part is a genuine news article. The second is my own piece of whimsy.   It is quite a few years ago since I first placed them on CAF.

Read both messages here on CAF in 2004
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=116607
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 08:57:28 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2010, 01:05:54 AM »
Dear OnThePathForward,

To make up for putting my whimsical message about the Hand of Peter in Russia in your thread  :) - there are three serious messages on the papacy at the end of this thread:  "Unia as a Model of False Unity"
 http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28837.msg456960/topicseen.html#msg456960

Offline OnThePathForward

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2010, 08:10:25 AM »
Thank you Irish Hermit for the link. 

I did also find this:

http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/articles/2010/07/unia-as-a-model-of-false-unity/

My wife and I are just so happy that we've found Orthodoxy.

Offline OnThePathForward

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2010, 11:23:03 AM »
Thomas, thank you for the kind comments about a 'quality posting'.  I put a lot of time into it, because I really wanted to attempt to understand everything.  If there are any Roman Catholics on here, I would love to hear your answers to each of these 7 statements and your justification for each so I can better understand the RCC's stance/justification on each of these points.

Thank you everyone and I hope all of you are having a wonderful and relaxing weekend.

-OnThePathForward

Offline OnThePathForward

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2010, 04:29:37 PM »
Ok, so I dug more into the 'Apostolic Constitutions' ( Title: ANF07. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies), and I found this:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.viii.iv.html

Supposedly Saint Peter actually wrote:

'Of the church of Rome, Linus  the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.'

Also, here's the entire .txt file:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.txt

I never knew it was actually Saint Peter that wrote this...is this really correct?



Offline NorthernPines

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 934
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2010, 06:55:52 PM »
I never knew it was actually Saint Peter that wrote this...is this really correct?


Perhaps someone more scholarly than myself can answer for certain, and give specific reasons, but the generally accepted answer is that no St. Peter didn't write that whatsoever. It is what is known among Biblical scholars, as well as ecclesiastial scholars as a  Pseudonymous writing.  if one wanted to call it a forgery I suppose one could do that, but of course that has connotation today that has a sense of being accusatory in nature (because it our age it would be flat out deceptive) but in the ancient world pseudonymous writings were quite common, and often accepted. There are likely a few psudonymous writings in the Biblical Canon in fact, for example the disputed letters of Peter. (and yes they were even disputed by the Church fathers, not just by modern scholarship)

The "Apostolic Constitutions" as a whole fit this category as well. (ie: the Apostles did not write them)  I can't give specific information about the text you're refering to specifically, but generally, historians and scholars can tell quite easily if a writing is a "forgery" or pseudonymous simply by internal textual evidence such as, if the Greek (or Latin) is perfect, it's highly improbably an illiterate Galilean Aramaic speaking peasant of the first century wrote it! :) Another way to tell is if a reported "first century" text refers to Church structures or explicitly defined doctrines that didn't exist until say the 4th century, (note I say defined doctrines not doctrines in general) again it's highly improbable that it is legit.This is often the case with the Apostolic Constitutions where it talks about Canons and structures that simply didn't exist in the first century Church.  This is just the nature of these things and isn't really that shocking of a fact among many Orthodox, and probably even more Catholics. I'm sure this is taught in all the Seminaries within the Catholic Church. The only one's who ever seem to be shocked by this are the professional internet apologists or ultra traditionalists, whether they be Catholic or Orthodox.

perhaps someone else can give you specific information about this specific text, as I'm only speaking of generalities. But it's a good bet this text fits what I've said.





Offline OnThePathForward

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2010, 03:09:14 PM »
Thank you for your insight on this NorthernPines.  So, is what is written still considered accurate in these types of writings, even though it may have been written by someone else?  Fascinating stuff...


Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,204
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2010, 04:19:03 PM »
Thank you for your insight on this NorthernPines.  So, is what is written still considered accurate in these types of writings, even though it may have been written by someone else?  Fascinating stuff...


If it expresses the Faith, it doesn't matter who wrote it.  If it didn't express the Faith, it wouldn't have any authority if St. Peter wrote it.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2010, 10:15:54 PM »
I came across these words from St. Gregory Palamas, in his homily on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul:

Quote
Since Peter has shown that he has not lost his love for Him and has now acquired humility as well, [the Lord] openly fulfills the promised made long before and tells him, "Feed my lambs" (John 21:15). When He was referring to the company of believers as a building, He promised to make Peter the foundation stone, saying, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18)

St. Gregory later says, in the same homily:

Quote
Given that Paul made the same confession of faith as Peter, and had the same zeal, humility and love, surely they received the same rewards from Him who measures everything with completely just scales, yardstick, and plumbline. Anything else would be unreasonable. That is why the Lord told Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church (Matt. 16:18), whereas he said to Ananias of Paul, "He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings" (Acts 9:15). Which name? Clearly the name we have been given, the name of Christ's Church, which rests on the foundation stone of Peter. Notice that Peter and Paul are equal in prominence and glory, and both hold up the Church. Consequently the Church now bestows and the same honour on both, and celeberates them together with equal esteem.

Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,280
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2010, 11:58:21 PM »
These two podcasts might be of some assistance to the OP:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/keys_to_the_kingdom_st_peter

followed by:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/a_chosen_instrument_of_mine_st_paul

They are a two-part series on the issue of St. Peter's role in the early church.

Also, this book is supposed to be excellent:

http://www.amazon.com/Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology-Church/dp/0881411256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280116678&sr=8-1-spell

Offline OnThePathForward

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2010, 09:36:49 PM »
Thank you for the information Alveus Lacuna.  So I guess I need to amend:

Quote
2) Due to the above, St. Peter was the Head of the Apostles:

Matthew 20:25 - 20:27:

25 However, Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and great ones make their authority felt.
26 But it shall not be so among you! Instead, whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.
27 Whoever desires to be first among you shall be your servant, even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

Luke 22:24 - 22:27

24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest.
25 And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.'
26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.
27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.

Mark 10:35 - 10:45

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask."
36 And He said to them, "What do you want Me to do for you?"
37 They said to Him, "Grant us that we may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on Your left, in Your glory."
38 But Jesus said to Them, "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to Drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"
39 They said to Him, "We are able." So Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink the cup that I drink, and with the baptism I am baptized wit you will be baptized;
40 but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared."
41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be greatly displeased with James and John.
42 But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
43 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.
44 And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all.
45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Accurate: Per Jesus Christ's statements, St. Peter was an equal among the Apostles, not the Head of the Apostles.


Amended --> Accurate: Yes, he was viewed as the leader of the Apostles, although Jesus Christ makes it clear in the above passages that St. Peter was an equal among the Apostles.  In no way did he have any authority or jurisdiction over the other Apostles.

Is this correct regarding the statement above?
« Last Edit: July 26, 2010, 09:38:18 PM by OnThePathForward »

Offline Michael_Gerard

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2010, 11:22:39 AM »
I'm confussed.

If the first bishop of Rome was ordained by Paul, and the second bishop of Rome was ordained by Peter, and the Apostle John outlived both of them, who inhereted the keys?

Doesn't an Apostle outrank a bishop?

I'm under the impression that John outlived both of these early bishops of Rome, but did he?

Why do some Orthodox say that all bishops are the succesors of all the Apostles?

Is there patristic evidence to support this position?

Did any ecumenical council have anything to say on this, or on the authority, jurisdiction, and limitations of the Roman See?

« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 11:23:27 AM by Michael_Gerard »

Offline Erethorn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2010, 02:52:52 AM »
Here's what Saint John Chrysostom had to say on the subject:

"He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ' 'Simon, Simon,' etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: 'Simon, Simon, etc." (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2010, 03:28:44 AM »
The thing that really tips off my 'something smells funny' meter regarding the pope and papal supremacy is the doctrine of papal infallibility. Why did it take so long for the church to declare this doctrine? Any why were the popes of the past fallible on doctrinal matters? (e.g. Pope Honorious, and Peter being reprimanded by Paul in the Acts of the Apostles) What happened after 1870 that all of the sudden gave the pope absolute authority on doctrinal matters? The truth is, the Vatican started to notice that people were slipping away from the church as a result of the enlightenment era, and they began to tighten their grip as a reactionary measure.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 03:29:42 AM by Ortho_cat »

Offline Erethorn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2010, 03:54:33 AM »
The thing that really tips off my 'something smells funny' meter regarding the pope and papal supremacy is the doctrine of papal infallibility. Why did it take so long for the church to declare this doctrine? Any why were the popes of the past fallible on doctrinal matters? (e.g. Pope Honorious, and Peter being reprimanded by Paul in the Acts of the Apostles) What happened after 1870 that all of the sudden gave the pope absolute authority on doctrinal matters? The truth is, the Vatican started to notice that people were slipping away from the church as a result of the enlightenment era, and they began to tighten their grip as a reactionary measure.

And what is your opinion on the results of the enlightment era ?

Humanism, relativism, etc. ?

Owing to geo-political and historical reasons, the Orthodox Church was relatively save from those developements. The Catholic world, on the other hand, was forced to take them head-on.

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 876
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2010, 08:00:13 AM »
Did Archbishop Kenrik write about this in a particular work? If so it might be an interesting read.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2010, 08:38:00 AM »

Something of interest - an alternative understanding of the Keys in the Church of Rome.

"What were the powers of the Keys as understood in the West in earlier days?"

The Clavis Potentiae and the Clavis Scientiae


The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article The Power of the Keys where it seems that up until the 14th or 15th century the power of the keys was not understood in the limited modern Catholic understanding.  The understanding for the first millennium and a half in the West was centred on the power of all the clergy to judge penitents and forgive their sins.   It's a tantalisingly short article and it would be great to find a fuller source.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

"The meaning attached to the term [the power of the keys] by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance.


For more please go to message 213
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29681.msg470186.html#msg470186

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,204
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2010, 09:16:59 AM »
The thing that really tips off my 'something smells funny' meter regarding the pope and papal supremacy is the doctrine of papal infallibility. Why did it take so long for the church to declare this doctrine? Any why were the popes of the past fallible on doctrinal matters? (e.g. Pope Honorious, and Peter being reprimanded by Paul in the Acts of the Apostles) What happened after 1870 that all of the sudden gave the pope absolute authority on doctrinal matters? The truth is, the Vatican started to notice that people were slipping away from the church as a result of the enlightenment era, and they began to tighten their grip as a reactionary measure.

And what is your opinion on the results of the enlightment era ?

Humanism, relativism, etc. ?

Owing to geo-political and historical reasons, the Orthodox Church was relatively save from those developements. The Catholic world, on the other hand, was forced to take them head-on.
Becausee the Vatican had to take responsibility for its children.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Erethorn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2010, 11:19:51 AM »
The thing that really tips off my 'something smells funny' meter regarding the pope and papal supremacy is the doctrine of papal infallibility. Why did it take so long for the church to declare this doctrine? Any why were the popes of the past fallible on doctrinal matters? (e.g. Pope Honorious, and Peter being reprimanded by Paul in the Acts of the Apostles) What happened after 1870 that all of the sudden gave the pope absolute authority on doctrinal matters? The truth is, the Vatican started to notice that people were slipping away from the church as a result of the enlightenment era, and they began to tighten their grip as a reactionary measure.

And what is your opinion on the results of the enlightment era ?

Humanism, relativism, etc. ?

Owing to geo-political and historical reasons, the Orthodox Church was relatively save from those developements. The Catholic world, on the other hand, was forced to take them head-on.
Becausee the Vatican had to take responsibility for its children.

And now, with these same tendencies sweeping through the Orthodox countries (see the abortion rates, for example) it can all be safely blamed on the Vatican, right ? Ah, the wonders of self-victimisation....

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,519
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2010, 11:29:03 AM »
The thing that really tips off my 'something smells funny' meter regarding the pope and papal supremacy is the doctrine of papal infallibility. Why did it take so long for the church to declare this doctrine? Any why were the popes of the past fallible on doctrinal matters? (e.g. Pope Honorious, and Peter being reprimanded by Paul in the Acts of the Apostles) What happened after 1870 that all of the sudden gave the pope absolute authority on doctrinal matters? The truth is, the Vatican started to notice that people were slipping away from the church as a result of the enlightenment era, and they began to tighten their grip as a reactionary measure.

And what is your opinion on the results of the enlightment era ?

Humanism, relativism, etc. ?

Owing to geo-political and historical reasons, the Orthodox Church was relatively save from those developements. The Catholic world, on the other hand, was forced to take them head-on.

The Catholic Church was forced to take them head on, a' la' Galileo and the Inquisition?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 11:33:03 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,204
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2010, 11:31:01 AM »
The thing that really tips off my 'something smells funny' meter regarding the pope and papal supremacy is the doctrine of papal infallibility. Why did it take so long for the church to declare this doctrine? Any why were the popes of the past fallible on doctrinal matters? (e.g. Pope Honorious, and Peter being reprimanded by Paul in the Acts of the Apostles) What happened after 1870 that all of the sudden gave the pope absolute authority on doctrinal matters? The truth is, the Vatican started to notice that people were slipping away from the church as a result of the enlightenment era, and they began to tighten their grip as a reactionary measure.

And what is your opinion on the results of the enlightment era ?

Humanism, relativism, etc. ?

Owing to geo-political and historical reasons, the Orthodox Church was relatively save from those developements. The Catholic world, on the other hand, was forced to take them head-on.
Becausee the Vatican had to take responsibility for its children.

And now, with these same tendencies sweeping through the Orthodox countries (see the abortion rates, for example) it can all be safely blamed on the Vatican, right ? Ah, the wonders of self-victimisation....
The Communists forced such things in nearly all the Orthodox world; Italy, Spain, France, Mexico, etc. voted them in by free election.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2010, 11:32:36 AM »

And now, with these same tendencies sweeping through the Orthodox countries (see the abortion rates, for example) it can all be safely blamed on the Vatican, right ? Ah, the wonders of self-victimisation....

Modern Orthodoxy has emerged from the scourge of Communism in many countries and it is strong and resurgent.  It has engaged the battle to change the mind of the nation which used abortion as its normal form of birth control under the Communists.    Russia has opened 33,000 churches since 1991 (but Catholic Europe is selling theirs to the Muslims!!)

Orthodoxy makes a moral impact on society.  In both Bulgaria and Russia, for example, tougher abortion laws have been brought in, partly as a result of Church lobbying.   Russia is a country where the abortion rate is actually slowing declining.  The exact opposite is taking place in Western Catholic Europe.


Abortion Statistics for Italy

For the year 2008:

Live births.... 576,659

Abortions......121,406

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-italy.html

Offline Erethorn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2010, 11:35:39 AM »


« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 11:45:29 AM by Erethorn »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,519
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2010, 11:42:04 AM »
Do you realize what this means?
People in Western Europe were starting to wake up in the Enlightenment.

Scientists like Galileo.

People were starting to question leadership and criticize ideas.

They found that alot of the ideas, like purgatory and indulgences weren't making sense. Alot of changes had been brought in that ran against early Christianity.

Luther and other critical thinkers wanted to go back to the early church, to find the true church.

They saw so many important things had been changed. So they just downplayed or diminished the importance of "tradition", "succession", "church leadership" that were used as excuses for the inventions. But in order to get rid of the RC changes, Protestants downplayed important concepts.

The process of Protestants trying to find the early church of Jerusalem continues, with many of them failing to realize that it continued, with traditions and succession and leadership to the east, then under Turkish domination, and nowadays sometimes living in refugee camps. It is hard for Protestants to realize the early church when it is under foreign onChristian rule, or having its Patriarchate disbanded by a "Caesarist" Empire, or living in Arab refugee camps, crying, asking for us to help them. Can we criticize them from a higher position? For such reasons, it is hard for many Orthodox to see Christ amongst us.



But it's important still to remember that some of the debates in Western Christainity are in Orthodoxy. For example, the Enlightenment scholars downplayed the imperious attitude of the RC church to the magisterium.

Like the Enlightenment scholars, Orthodox scholars could run up against challenges where Church tradition is confusing or saints have different positions. Such confusing traditions are involved, for example, when talking about issues with the Orientals. Like the Enlightenment critics, we too come up against issues of the authority of our hierarchs, as with Metr. Phillip.

The RC Pope answer is to squash enlightenment and critical thought? The Orthodox answer must be to say that many things are mysteries, and we must approach them with oppenness, critical thinking, and acceptance that many things may be un-doctrined mysteries.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 11:53:43 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2010, 11:52:13 AM »

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/Erethorn/mapeuropeabrate.gif

Could we have a source and a date for the picture please.

Offline Erethorn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2010, 11:54:31 AM »
Do you realize what this means?
People in Western Europe were starting to wake up in the Enlightenment.

Scientists like Galileo.

People were starting to question leadership and criticize ideas.

I think you might want to reconcile your position to that of ialmisry. The enlightment can be either a bad thing, brought forth by the Catholic Church, or a good thing against which the Catholic Church fought. Not both.

Don't worry; either way, the Catholic Church is the bad guy.

IrishHermit, here's the source:  http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 11:55:13 AM by Erethorn »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,519
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2010, 11:55:17 AM »

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/Erethorn/mapeuropeabrate.gif

Could we have a source and a date for the picture please.
Why do we need to? He proved the point- convert to Islam (turkey, Middle East, Palestine, North Africa), save millions of lives.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 11:56:00 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Erethorn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2010, 12:01:29 PM »

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/Erethorn/mapeuropeabrate.gif

Could we have a source and a date for the picture please.
Why do we need to? He proved the point- convert to Islam (turkey, Middle East, Palestine, North Africa), save millions of lives.
By following the same train of thought, the Catholic response when accused for the Inquisitions and Crusades should be: "well, convert to Rastafarianism, they never killed anyone, they're just getting high".
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 12:02:10 PM by Erethorn »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2010, 12:08:54 PM »
http://www.levada.ru/press/2010081900.html

The number of prolifers increased in Russia from 21%  to 41% over the last 12 years.  It means tens of millions.

This is a miracle!  This is the country which under the Communists was the first to legalise abortion in the world and there have been four generations of atheistic propaganda in favour of abortion and severe persecution of Christianity

This is public opinion research.

Offline Erethorn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2010, 12:14:07 PM »
When looking at former communist Poland and former communist Russia or Romania, one has to think.... Abortion rate, 15 times higher ?!  ???

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,519
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2010, 12:17:20 PM »
I think you might want to reconcile your position to that of ialmisry.

Enlightenment thinkers like Galileo and Protestants like Luther were trying to figure things out. Luther wanted to get past the RC inventions to go back to the original ways. But to get past the RC invented traditions, like infallibility, he downplayed tradition itself.

Likewise, Ialmisry is making the same point about the USSR.
The USSR had so much science like Galileo, and it taught millions of extremely poor illiterates how to read. The Socialist USSR and Protestant America were in many ways products of the Enlightenment, and they became 2 of the most scientifically advanced countries in the 20th century.

But there can be criticism of the USSR too, just as we can criticize Protestantism. Luther threw out invented tradition and RC papal one-man arbitrary totalitarianism/infallibility, but he also downplayed the concept of tradition. Likewise, the USSR did good, in my personal opinion, in rejecting an aristocratic society where some live in castles and others live as illiterate farmers, but it seems that some ancient moral concepts and important cultural traditions were downplayed. In terms of ideas, Luther went as far as to reject the authenticity of the Bible's Letter of St James because it disagreed with Luther's ideas. Stalin in the USSR went further, and like RC, Judaic, and Calvinist theocracies that killed their critics, Stalin killed 2,000 priests in the 1930's.

On the other hand, many people don't realize that Protestants and the USSR do put some value to early church and Russian religious traditions, BTW. Protestants generally teach against tradition in their literature, and the USSR in the 1930's especially had propaganda campaigns against our relgion. But then strangely protestant theologians are forced to sometimes refer to early saints' writings so that they can at least understand Christianity. Likewise, the USSR did treat some ancient churches as cultural monuments, and in the movie "The 41st" the red soldiers bury their own under crosses.

Science, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Democracy, Monarchism, Czarism, and the USSR, and all our necessary critical thinking
Cannot destroy that which is eternal!
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 12:27:30 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,204
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #37 on: November 16, 2010, 12:23:50 PM »
When looking at former communist Poland and former communist Russia or Romania, one has to think.... Abortion rate, 15 times higher ?!  ???
A large part is overreaction: in Romania every woman was expected to have 5 children, and the communists inspected each woman to make sure that they did their state duty.

Margaret Sanger, btw, used to point to Romanian immigrants to illsutrate "the need" of contraception.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline recent convert

  • Orthodox Chrisitan
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,166
  • St.David of Wales pray for us
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #38 on: November 16, 2010, 12:34:52 PM »
Well a few years ago I became aware of a forged document from around the 8th c in which it is alleged that the emporer Constantine I conferred Papal supremacy to Rome in the 4th c. This document declared a forgery in the 15th c but for centuries it was used in good faith even by major theologians like Thomas Aquinas to buttress Papal supremacy. Surely the claim must have been unsound to necessitate a forgery & the fact that justifications were inadvertantly derived from a forgery must render the claim of Papal supremacy weak. The document is called the Donation of Constantine & a link from New Advent can be read here. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm
Antiochian OC NA

Beware the wrath of the guardians of "love."

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #39 on: November 16, 2010, 01:15:40 PM »
Well a few years ago I became aware of a forged document from around the 8th c in which it is alleged that the emporer Constantine I conferred Papal supremacy to Rome in the 4th c. This document declared a forgery in the 15th c but for centuries it was used in good faith even by major theologians like Thomas Aquinas to buttress Papal supremacy. Surely the claim must have been unsound to necessitate a forgery & the fact that justifications were inadvertantly derived from a forgery must render the claim of Papal supremacy weak. The document is called the Donation of Constantine & a link from New Advent can be read here. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

From the newadvent article cited above:

Quote
The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no one before the fifteenth century. It was known to the Greeks in the second half of the twelfth century, when it appears in the collection of Theodore Balsamon (1169 sqq.); later on another Greek canonist, Matthæus Blastares (about 1335), admitted it into his collection. It appears also in other Greek works. Moreover, it was highly esteemed in the Greek East. The Greeks claimed, it is well known, for the Bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) the same honorary rights as those enjoyed by the Bishop of Old Rome. By now, by virtue of this document, they claimed for the Byzantine clergy also the privileges and perogatives granted to the pope and the Roman ecclesiastics. In the West, long after its authenticity was disputed in the fifteenth century, its validity was still upheld by the majority of canonists and jurists who continued throughout the sixteenth century to quote it as authentic. And though Baronius and later historians acknowledged it to be a forgery, they endeavoured to marshal other authorities in defence of its content, especially as regards the imperial donations. In later times even this was abandoned, so that now the whole "Constitutum", both in form and content, is rightly considered in all senses a forgery.

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,656
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #40 on: November 16, 2010, 01:22:39 PM »
IrishHermit, here's the source:  http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html

While the abortion rate in the former Eastern Bloc nations is certainly high, one can see that it is steadily decreasing since the fall of communism and the rebirth of Orthodoxy in those countries:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-russia.html

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-romania.html

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-ukraine.html

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-serbiamontenegro.html

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-bulgaria.html
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 01:22:59 PM by Schultz »
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,204
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #41 on: November 16, 2010, 01:47:11 PM »
Well a few years ago I became aware of a forged document from around the 8th c in which it is alleged that the emporer Constantine I conferred Papal supremacy to Rome in the 4th c. This document declared a forgery in the 15th c but for centuries it was used in good faith even by major theologians like Thomas Aquinas to buttress Papal supremacy. Surely the claim must have been unsound to necessitate a forgery & the fact that justifications were inadvertantly derived from a forgery must render the claim of Papal supremacy weak. The document is called the Donation of Constantine & a link from New Advent can be read here. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

From the newadvent article cited above:

Quote
The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no one before the fifteenth century. It was known to the Greeks in the second half of the twelfth century, when it appears in the collection of Theodore Balsamon (1169 sqq.); later on another Greek canonist, Matthæus Blastares (about 1335), admitted it into his collection. It appears also in other Greek works. Moreover, it was highly esteemed in the Greek East. The Greeks claimed, it is well known, for the Bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) the same honorary rights as those enjoyed by the Bishop of Old Rome. By now, by virtue of this document, they claimed for the Byzantine clergy also the privileges and perogatives granted to the pope and the Roman ecclesiastics. In the West, long after its authenticity was disputed in the fifteenth century, its validity was still upheld by the majority of canonists and jurists who continued throughout the sixteenth century to quote it as authentic. And though Baronius and later historians acknowledged it to be a forgery, they endeavoured to marshal other authorities in defence of its content, especially as regards the imperial donations. In later times even this was abandoned, so that now the whole "Constitutum", both in form and content, is rightly considered in all senses a forgery.
same source
Quote
As to the place of the forgery Baronius (Annales, ad. an. 1081) maintained that it was done in the East by a schismatic Greek; it is, indeed, found in Greek canonical collections. Natalis Alexander opposed this view, and it is no longer held by any recent historian...They call attention to the fact that the "Donatio" appears first in Frankish collections, i.e. in the False Decretals and in the above-mentioned St-Denis manuscript; moreover the earliest certain quotation of it is by Frankish authors in the second half of the ninth century. Finally, this document was never used in the papal chancery until the middle of the eleventh century, nor in general is it referred to in Roman sources until the time of Otto III (983-1002, i.e. in case the famous "Diploma" of this emperor be authentic). The first certain use of it at Rome was by Leo IX in 1054, and it is to be noted that this pope was by birth and training a German, not an Italian. The writers mentioned have shown that the chief aim of the forgery was to prove the justice of the translatio imperii to the Franks, i.e. the transfer of the imperial title at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800; the forgery was, therefore, important mainly for the Frankish Empire....Grauert, for whom the forger is a Frankish subject, shares the view of Hergenröther, i.e. the forger had in mind a defence of the new Western Empire from the attacks of the Byzantines. Therefore it was highly important for him to establish the legitimacy of the newly founded empire, and this purpose was especially aided by all that the document alleges concerning the elevation of the pope....As far as the evidence at hand permits us to judge, the forged "Constitutum" was first made known in the Frankish Empire. The oldest extant manuscript of it, certainly from the ninth century, was written in the Frankish Empire. In the second half of that century the document is expressly mentioned by three Frankish writers. Ado, Bishop of Vienne, speaks of it in his Chronicle (De sex ætatibus mundi, ad an. 306, in P.L., CXXIII, 92); Æneas, Bishop of Paris, refers to it in defence of the Roman primacy (Adversus Græcos, c. ccix, op. cit., CXXI, 758); Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, mentions the donation of Rome to the pope by Constantine the Great according to the "Constitutum" (De ordine palatii, c. xiii, op. cit., CXXV, 998). The document obtained wider circulation by its incorporation with the False Decretals (840-850, or more specifically between 847 and 852; Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianæ, Leipzig, 1863, p. 249). At Rome no use was made of the document during the ninth and the tenth centuries, not even amid the conflicts and difficulties of Nicholas I with Constantinople, when it might have served as a welcome argument for the claims of the pope. The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood.

A look through the Theodosian Code, which preadates the Donation Forgery by some centuries, and even the Justinian Code (later, but still predating the Donation by centuries) will show that Constantinople already had all the privileges and perogatives.

I'd like to see some of that "high esteem" of the "Greek East" it our own words, i.e. a quote.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #42 on: November 16, 2010, 02:02:59 PM »
Well a few years ago I became aware of a forged document from around the 8th c in which it is alleged that the emporer Constantine I conferred Papal supremacy to Rome in the 4th c. This document declared a forgery in the 15th c but for centuries it was used in good faith even by major theologians like Thomas Aquinas to buttress Papal supremacy. Surely the claim must have been unsound to necessitate a forgery & the fact that justifications were inadvertantly derived from a forgery must render the claim of Papal supremacy weak. The document is called the Donation of Constantine & a link from New Advent can be read here. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

From the newadvent article cited above:

Quote
The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no one before the fifteenth century. It was known to the Greeks in the second half of the twelfth century, when it appears in the collection of Theodore Balsamon (1169 sqq.); later on another Greek canonist, Matthæus Blastares (about 1335), admitted it into his collection. It appears also in other Greek works. Moreover, it was highly esteemed in the Greek East. The Greeks claimed, it is well known, for the Bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) the same honorary rights as those enjoyed by the Bishop of Old Rome. By now, by virtue of this document, they claimed for the Byzantine clergy also the privileges and perogatives granted to the pope and the Roman ecclesiastics. In the West, long after its authenticity was disputed in the fifteenth century, its validity was still upheld by the majority of canonists and jurists who continued throughout the sixteenth century to quote it as authentic. And though Baronius and later historians acknowledged it to be a forgery, they endeavoured to marshal other authorities in defence of its content, especially as regards the imperial donations. In later times even this was abandoned, so that now the whole "Constitutum", both in form and content, is rightly considered in all senses a forgery.
same source
Quote
As to the place of the forgery Baronius (Annales, ad. an. 1081) maintained that it was done in the East by a schismatic Greek; it is, indeed, found in Greek canonical collections. Natalis Alexander opposed this view, and it is no longer held by any recent historian...They call attention to the fact that the "Donatio" appears first in Frankish collections, i.e. in the False Decretals and in the above-mentioned St-Denis manuscript; moreover the earliest certain quotation of it is by Frankish authors in the second half of the ninth century. Finally, this document was never used in the papal chancery until the middle of the eleventh century, nor in general is it referred to in Roman sources until the time of Otto III (983-1002, i.e. in case the famous "Diploma" of this emperor be authentic). The first certain use of it at Rome was by Leo IX in 1054, and it is to be noted that this pope was by birth and training a German, not an Italian. The writers mentioned have shown that the chief aim of the forgery was to prove the justice of the translatio imperii to the Franks, i.e. the transfer of the imperial title at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800; the forgery was, therefore, important mainly for the Frankish Empire....Grauert, for whom the forger is a Frankish subject, shares the view of Hergenröther, i.e. the forger had in mind a defence of the new Western Empire from the attacks of the Byzantines. Therefore it was highly important for him to establish the legitimacy of the newly founded empire, and this purpose was especially aided by all that the document alleges concerning the elevation of the pope....As far as the evidence at hand permits us to judge, the forged "Constitutum" was first made known in the Frankish Empire. The oldest extant manuscript of it, certainly from the ninth century, was written in the Frankish Empire. In the second half of that century the document is expressly mentioned by three Frankish writers. Ado, Bishop of Vienne, speaks of it in his Chronicle (De sex ætatibus mundi, ad an. 306, in P.L., CXXIII, 92); Æneas, Bishop of Paris, refers to it in defence of the Roman primacy (Adversus Græcos, c. ccix, op. cit., CXXI, 758); Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, mentions the donation of Rome to the pope by Constantine the Great according to the "Constitutum" (De ordine palatii, c. xiii, op. cit., CXXV, 998). The document obtained wider circulation by its incorporation with the False Decretals (840-850, or more specifically between 847 and 852; Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianæ, Leipzig, 1863, p. 249). At Rome no use was made of the document during the ninth and the tenth centuries, not even amid the conflicts and difficulties of Nicholas I with Constantinople, when it might have served as a welcome argument for the claims of the pope. The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood.

A look through the Theodosian Code, which preadates the Donation Forgery by some centuries, and even the Justinian Code (later, but still predating the Donation by centuries) will show that Constantinople already had all the privileges and perogatives.

I'd like to see some of that "high esteem" of the "Greek East" it our own words, i.e. a quote.

That would require something more than a "look through," but I agree with you here.  It is something worth rediscovering and acquiring more data about because it indicates a certain parity in thinking that is too often denied.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,204
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #43 on: November 17, 2010, 10:20:57 AM »
Here's what Saint John Chrysostom had to say on the subject:

"He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ' 'Simon, Simon,' etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: 'Simon, Simon, etc." (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).
St. John has far more to say:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27476.msg433324/topicseen.html#msg433324
Quote
Quote from: Alonso_castillo on May 11, 2010, 11:48:47 AM
Quote from: ialmisry on May 11, 2010, 10:49:37 AM
The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils evidently were similarly inspired.  The canons refering to Rome's authority refer only to the presence of the emperor and the senate.  No reference to St. Peter or the Office of the Keys, etc.

Tell it to St John Chrysostom:

The same St. John who wasn't in communion with Rome most of his life, and received ordination from St. Meletius, the Patriarch of Antioch that Rome condemned?
Somewhere here we have a whole thread on that.


Quote
1) And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

I think St. John already knew:
Ok folks, here it is:  the clearest quote from a Father that implies Rome has all the power of the other bishops, in itself:

"[“Men and brethren,” etc.] Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He [Peter] did not say, 'We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively."

St. Chrysostom.  Homily 3 on Acts:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm

Chrysostom here describes how although Peter had all the power, he was polite and wise enough to work through a council.
Please no replies stating Peter's unique authority stopped after his death.  As if Christ thought only the first generation apostles would need a visible head with unique authority.  

You mean Christ?


Quote
There are too many quotes by Fathers that link the Bishop of Rome and his authority (whatever exactly that might be) with Peter.  (Met. Kallistos (Ware)'s "The Orthodox Church" and Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" at least makes this much evident).

K



Then I guess your first question should be why St. John spurned the authority of that all-powerful pontiff and accepted ordination from someone (St. Meletius) that the Pope of Rome said was a schismatic and heretic, and supported a rival patriarch of Antioch.

You (or your quote factory) ought to read these things better:
St. Chrysostom.  Homily 3 on Acts:
Quote
Again, consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark also the great moderation of the other Apostles, how they concede the throne to him, and no longer dispute with each other. For that Church was as it were in heaven: having nothing to do with this world’s affairs: and resplendent not with wails, no, nor with numbers, but with the zeal of them that formed the assembly.
Homily 18 on Acts
Quote
Why had not these received the Holy Ghost, when baptized? Either because Philip kept this honor for the Apostles; or, because he had not this gift (to impart); or, he was one of the Seven: which is rather to be said. Whence, I take it, this Philip was one of the Apostles...But observe; those went not forth: it was Providentially ordered that these should go forth and those be lacking, because of the Holy Ghost: for they had received power to work miracles, but not also to impart the Spirit to others: this was the prerogative of the Apostles. And observe (how they sent) the chief ones: not any others, but Peter [and John]
"They sent."  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. John 13:16.
Homily 23
Quote
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (Deut. xvii. 6; Matt. xviii. 16.) But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old.  For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion.  (b) “Men and brethren,” he says, “hearken unto me.” Great is the moderation of the man. His also is a more complete oration, as indeed it puts the completion to the matter under discussion. (a) “Symeon,” he says, “declared:” (namely,) in Luke, in that he prophesied, “Which Thou hast prepared before the face of all nations, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel....Then, what makes his word authoritative—“Saith the Lord, which doeth all these things:” and, for that this is no new thing, but all was planned from the beginning, “Known unto God are all His works from everlasting." And then again his authority (καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα πάλιν) (as Bishop): “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”....Then the decree is made in common. “Then pleased it the Apostles and elders, together with the whole Church, to choose men of their own company”—do you observe they do not merely enact these matters, and nothing more?—“and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote letters by them after this manner.” (v. 22.) And observe, the more to authenticate the decree, they send men of their own, that there may be no room for regarding Paul and his company with suspicion. “The Apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” ...(Recapitulation.) “Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up.  (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxiii.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25354.msg397130/topicseen.html#msg397130
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24876.msg395205/topicseen.html#msg395205
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 10:22:02 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: St. Peter - Rome - Papal Primacy
« Reply #44 on: November 17, 2010, 10:32:30 AM »
In the dogmatic constitution on papal primacy and infallibility, it is stated quite explicitly that papal power does not substitute for episcopal power.  It is the limiting language that the true ultramontane did not want included in the definition.
 
So you are tilting at windmills with all of this.   As I said earlier, you distort by only presenting one part or another and pretending that it is conclusive of something...and you know perfectly well that is what you do.   Because of that I say that these distortions are objectively sinful acts of false witness and therefor they are evil.



Here's what Saint John Chrysostom had to say on the subject:

"He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ' 'Simon, Simon,' etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: 'Simon, Simon, etc." (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).
St. John has far more to say:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27476.msg433324/topicseen.html#msg433324
Quote
Quote from: Alonso_castillo on May 11, 2010, 11:48:47 AM
Quote from: ialmisry on May 11, 2010, 10:49:37 AM
The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils evidently were similarly inspired.  The canons refering to Rome's authority refer only to the presence of the emperor and the senate.  No reference to St. Peter or the Office of the Keys, etc.

Tell it to St John Chrysostom:

The same St. John who wasn't in communion with Rome most of his life, and received ordination from St. Meletius, the Patriarch of Antioch that Rome condemned?
Somewhere here we have a whole thread on that.


Quote
1) And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

I think St. John already knew:
Ok folks, here it is:  the clearest quote from a Father that implies Rome has all the power of the other bishops, in itself:

"[“Men and brethren,” etc.] Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He [Peter] did not say, 'We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively."

St. Chrysostom.  Homily 3 on Acts:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm

Chrysostom here describes how although Peter had all the power, he was polite and wise enough to work through a council.
Please no replies stating Peter's unique authority stopped after his death.  As if Christ thought only the first generation apostles would need a visible head with unique authority.  

You mean Christ?


Quote
There are too many quotes by Fathers that link the Bishop of Rome and his authority (whatever exactly that might be) with Peter.  (Met. Kallistos (Ware)'s "The Orthodox Church" and Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" at least makes this much evident).

K



Then I guess your first question should be why St. John spurned the authority of that all-powerful pontiff and accepted ordination from someone (St. Meletius) that the Pope of Rome said was a schismatic and heretic, and supported a rival patriarch of Antioch.

You (or your quote factory) ought to read these things better:
St. Chrysostom.  Homily 3 on Acts:
Quote
Again, consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark also the great moderation of the other Apostles, how they concede the throne to him, and no longer dispute with each other. For that Church was as it were in heaven: having nothing to do with this world’s affairs: and resplendent not with wails, no, nor with numbers, but with the zeal of them that formed the assembly.
Homily 18 on Acts
Quote
Why had not these received the Holy Ghost, when baptized? Either because Philip kept this honor for the Apostles; or, because he had not this gift (to impart); or, he was one of the Seven: which is rather to be said. Whence, I take it, this Philip was one of the Apostles...But observe; those went not forth: it was Providentially ordered that these should go forth and those be lacking, because of the Holy Ghost: for they had received power to work miracles, but not also to impart the Spirit to others: this was the prerogative of the Apostles. And observe (how they sent) the chief ones: not any others, but Peter [and John]
"They sent."  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. John 13:16.
Homily 23
Quote
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (Deut. xvii. 6; Matt. xviii. 16.) But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old.  For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion.  (b) “Men and brethren,” he says, “hearken unto me.” Great is the moderation of the man. His also is a more complete oration, as indeed it puts the completion to the matter under discussion. (a) “Symeon,” he says, “declared:” (namely,) in Luke, in that he prophesied, “Which Thou hast prepared before the face of all nations, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel....Then, what makes his word authoritative—“Saith the Lord, which doeth all these things:” and, for that this is no new thing, but all was planned from the beginning, “Known unto God are all His works from everlasting." And then again his authority (καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα πάλιν) (as Bishop): “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”....Then the decree is made in common. “Then pleased it the Apostles and elders, together with the whole Church, to choose men of their own company”—do you observe they do not merely enact these matters, and nothing more?—“and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote letters by them after this manner.” (v. 22.) And observe, the more to authenticate the decree, they send men of their own, that there may be no room for regarding Paul and his company with suspicion. “The Apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” ...(Recapitulation.) “Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up.  (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxiii.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25354.msg397130/topicseen.html#msg397130
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24876.msg395205/topicseen.html#msg395205