OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 21, 2014, 10:08:35 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Questions about papal authority in the early years of the church  (Read 594 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
kodiak
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 26


« on: June 21, 2011, 07:55:43 PM »

By the subject of my post, I'm referring to everything before 1054.  The one christian church did have popes in Rome over the years, but what sort of authority did they have?  Is it not the same, in religious terms, as it is today?  I do know that some popes were considered too full of themselves and worldly things such as one (can't recall his name) who nearly bankrupted the Vatican to acquire a bunch of artwork.  I guess I'm trying to understand the issues a little more fully regarding the schism.  I do seem to recall mention that Rome was attempting to set supremacy above all other jurisdictions of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople.  Was there both a patriarch and pope in Rome at the time, or was it the same office?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,359



« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2011, 09:34:17 PM »

By the subject of my post, I'm referring to everything before 1054.  The one christian church did have popes in Rome over the years, but what sort of authority did they have?
 
Like the Prime Minister, not the King.  Or, in the US, the authority of the Speaker of the House.

Is it not the same, in religious terms, as it is today?
The pope of Rome today is out of the Orthodox communion of the Catholic Church, and hence has no authority in the Church.

I do know that some popes were considered too full of themselves and worldly things such as one (can't recall his name) who nearly bankrupted the Vatican to acquire a bunch of artwork.  I guess I'm trying to understand the issues a little more fully regarding the schism.
 
He thought he was the King, and not the Prime Minister, and henced he was given a vote of no confidence and removed.

I do seem to recall mention that Rome was attempting to set supremacy above all other jurisdictions of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople.  Was there both a patriarch and pope in Rome at the time, or was it the same office?
Same office, as the Pope of Alexandria (the original Pope) is still "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa."
Logged

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
Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2011, 07:51:39 AM »

I guess I'm trying to understand the issues a little more fully regarding the schism.

You might want to also look at the issues with the Patriarchs at this time, specifically in Constantinople.  If the Pope wasn't acting as he ought, then neither were many Patriarchs.

What I find interesting is the Pope of Rome from the 600s-800s or so were all Eastern, and were all appointed by the Emperor.  The relation between the Pope/Emperor/world between 800-1054 was not good.  Theological reasons aside, it doesn't surprise me there was schism.  I can discuss on this more, but I'm running late for work!
Logged
kodiak
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 26


« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2011, 01:26:04 PM »

The reason I bring up this question (and to provide a little background on myself) is I was raised Roman Catholic and am close to completing my conversion to the Orthodox faith.  What I recall being taught as a child was there was an unbroken line of succession back to the first pope, Peter.  Now, perhaps I was taught about the 5 jurisdictions in the early years of the church (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) but I honestly can not remember this.  Maybe I fell asleep during class that day.  Grin  So right now as an adult I operate under the impression I was not taught of these 5 equal jurisdictions in the early years. 

Orthodox readings thus far, such as Timothy Ware's book, emphasize the equality between the 5 as has my priest in his instruction.  The book refers to Peter as the first bishop of Rome, as the other cities also had bishops.  The Patriarchates today trace their lines back to their respective first bishops and so forth.  I suppose what I'm asking is what was it during the later years but pre-1054 that led Rome on a path to attempt to claim supremacy over all others on which the Catholic church still holds to today.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2011, 02:18:50 PM »

What was it during the later years but pre-1054 that led Rome on a path to attempt to claim supremacy over all others on which the Catholic church still holds to today.

Severe corruption in the 9th and 10th century papacy due to the political machinations of Roman nobles.

There had been hints of papal supremacy before with Pope St. Victor I and Pope Nicholas I, but what would happen in the mid to late 11th century Papal/Gregorian Reformation was unprecedented, the product of a new ideology espoused by a cadre of non-Roman clergymen whose shared vision transformed the Orthodox Western Churches into what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church--a monolithic entity under the universal jurisdiction of the Roman pope, who would be not just the ruler of churches, but of a state, and exercise authority over kings. This kind of papal supremacy had no precedent that I can think of prior to Leo IX.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2011, 02:39:37 PM »

The one christian church did have popes in Rome over the years, but what sort of authority did they have?
They had authority defined by the Canons. For example, consider Pope saint Julius I. Roman Catholics often say, that st. Athanasius appealed to him; but when Antiochian bishops asked him about this, he replied to them, that he acted according to the Canon of the First Ecumenical Council, according to which one Local Council can judge the decisions of another Local Council. (St. Athanasius was judged by the Roman Council, not by the Pope alone).
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 02:41:46 PM by Vadim » Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,983



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2011, 03:28:19 PM »

The reason I bring up this question (and to provide a little background on myself) is I was raised Roman Catholic and am close to completing my conversion to the Orthodox faith.  What I recall being taught as a child was there was an unbroken line of succession back to the first pope, Peter.  Now, perhaps I was taught about the 5 jurisdictions in the early years of the church (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) but I honestly can not remember this.  Maybe I fell asleep during class that day.  Grin  So right now as an adult I operate under the impression I was not taught of these 5 equal jurisdictions in the early years.  

Orthodox readings thus far, such as Timothy Ware's book, emphasize the equality between the 5 as has my priest in his instruction.  The book refers to Peter as the first bishop of Rome, as the other cities also had bishops.  The Patriarchates today trace their lines back to their respective first bishops and so forth.  I suppose what I'm asking is what was it during the later years but pre-1054 that led Rome on a path to attempt to claim supremacy over all others on which the Catholic church still holds to today.

"What I recall being taught as a child was there was an unbroken line of succession back to the first pope, Peter. "

Let's break that into two subjects:

- Unbroken succession;

- Peter, first pope;

Unbroken succesion is true, as it is that the Patriarch of Antioch *also* can trace an unbroken succesion to Peter, since this see was founded by the Apostle before Rome. It was the hand of Providence that Peter would have two direct lines of unbroken succession since if 1) Peter had been conceded supremacy and infallibility; 2) if these gifts were transmitted to his successors; 3) than necessarily both the Patriarch of Rome and of Antioch would have it.  3.1) In fact, considering that the Patriarch of Alexandria traces his own succession to Mark, the Evangelist, and Mark was a direct disciple of Peter (so much that some, like myself, believe that to be the Petrine Gospel), than maybe even the Patriarch of Alexandria *who held the title of Pope before the Roman bishop* would be fair game for infallibility and supremacy.

Indeed, if (1) Peter and his successors have supremacy over the church and also infallibility and since (2) we have two petrine successors and the Romans just one, I'd say that (3) either infallibility is true and therefore the Orthodox Church is the true One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, since two of three authorities agree and only one diverge; or infallibility is wrong and Rome's central claim is false. Tertium non datur.

Now, for the Peter being the first Pope. Peter was most classically depicted as the corypheus of the Apostle. This is an important title because the Fathers who used it knew and certainly studied Greek theater very well. Here's how Wikipedia explains it:

Quote
Coryphaeus, or Koryphaios (Greek κορυφαῖος koryphaîos, from κορυφή koryphḗ́, the top of the head), and often corypheus in English. In Attic drama, the coryphaeus was the leader of the chorus. Hence the term (sometimes in an Anglicized form "coryphe") is used for the chief or leader of any company or movement. The coryphaeus spoke for all the rest, whenever the chorus took part in the action, in quality of a person of the drama, during the course of the acts.

Also, David Wiles in "Greek Theatre Performance" ( http://is.gd/sUtN4I ) writes:

Quote
"The coriphaeus waw both leader and teacher, and in performance played a crucial role in setting the time that the other dancers followed. However there is no evidence to support the common idea that the coryphaeus alone spoke the short passages of dialogue which are allocated to the chorus but not designated for dancing."

The parts in bold go to the crux of the issue.

The coryphaeus was leader and teacher. That is what Romans get for the "supremacy" idea. But the second part of each paragraph is equally important: the coryphaeus is such only as long as "he speaks for all the rest" (like Peter does in Mat. 16:18) and "during the course of the acts", "in performance", i.e., while *following the script*, in our case, while reciting the Orthodox Faith - which is precisely what happens in Mat 16:18:

One sees clearly that Jesus gives the keys to Peter *because* he had confessed the orthodox faith. If Roman ecclesiology were correct, than Jesus would have given the keys to Peter, and *because of them* he would have uttered the orthodox faith. In sum: authority is a consequence of defending the orthodox faith, like the Orthodox Church has been doing. It is not faith that is a consequence of authority.

In short:

Orthodox teaching: Divinely given orthodox faith provides ecclesiological authority.
Roman teaching: Divinely given ecclesiological authority provides orthodox faith.

I believe that Mat 16:18 stands firmly on the ground of the Orthodox teaching.

Also, the coriphaeus did not speak of himself. Ever. He, like the chorus, had to attain to the script of the play and the imagination of the playwriter. He was not even the director of the play. The playwriter was. So it was the playwritter who would "depose" and "instate" actors. It was the plawriter who would organize and guarantee the success of the play because he himself had written it and he knew what he wanted to convey.

That is exactly the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. He is the playwriter and the director. He knows what He wants to convey. The bishop of Rome overstepped his role as coryphaeus and thought of himself as the "visible director" of the "invisible playwriter". People stopped trusting the True Director. That is why the second chanter, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was elevated to the role of Coryphaeus of the Church and the old coryphaeus built his own chorus to sing the songs they wrote themselves. Soon enough some of the singers thought they should create their own bands and Protestantism rose. Finally celebrity fever stroke some and they thought it would be great to have a "solo" career and that's how we came to this situation of hundreds of thousands of denominations and non-denominational churches. Each one singing their own songs, wanting to be more creative than the other and none in tune with the original play, except the ones that humbly kept the traditional order: the Orthodox Church.

So Peter was the first coryphaeus for sure. He spoke for the Apostles, and he spoke what he was told to by the Spirit in symphony with what all the others were saying. *Right after that* he dissonated and was reproached. His authority was completely dependent on the orthodoxy of his faith. It never guaranteed that he would always be orthodox or teach orthodoxily. In that sense, he was not the first "pope" because what the popes believe to be since Vatican I is clearly not what Peter knew he was. Peter has at least two direct succession lines and possibly a third. So, there is no possible angle where Roman doctrine holds water.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 03:32:35 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.062 seconds with 35 queries.