OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 10:22:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Irenaeus and the Papacy  (Read 23651 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
lellimore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


OC.net


« on: September 13, 2004, 07:23:41 PM »

Reading Irenaeus' Against the Heresies, I came across a discussion of the nature of the church in which Irenaeus seems to support the full papal doctrine later expounded by Leo I.  He writes, "It would be too tedious, in a work like this, to go through the succession lists of all the Churches.  We shall, therefore, take just one, the greatest, most ancient Church, the Church known to all, the Church founded and established in Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.  By showing that the tradition which she received from the apostles, the faith which she proclaims to men, has come down to us through the succession of bishops, we confute all those who, in whatever manner,...set up conventicles.  With this Church, because of its more excellent origin, every Church (in other words, the faithful everywhere) must agree."  It seems to me that here we see the greatest second-century theologian fully supporting the Roman primacy, and also that the ground of his support is not Rome's position as the imperial capital, but rather its status as the church of Peter and Paul.  Anyone care to comment on this?
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2004, 10:28:21 PM »


You might be interestedin accessing the following website which contains a debate between an Orthodox Catholic and a Roman Catholic regarding Papal Primacy -

http://www.aloofhosting.com/joesuaiden/apologetics/orthodoxcatholicdebate.html

Orthodoc
Logged

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.
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2004, 12:09:02 AM »

I think that keeping matters in the appropriate context is most important. If Rome had not fallen into the error of heresy and there was no support for the Orthodox position I don't think the Orthodox would question primacy as Irenaeus had articulated, etc. The Orthodox patristic views can not be disregarded or reduced to support the Roman Catholic supremacy developments. As such  the second-century theologian Irenaeus was not addressing the papacy of today and what and how that might be consider by the Latin’s minds of today, hence the quote is pertaining to a different time with different understandings.

The following post is text from Matthew Steenberg who is at Oxford furthering his studies. He's very objective in his commentaries at least from my perspective. This is a shorter read than the link provided by Orthodoc, if time is consideration.


"The Orthodox Church has always professed, and indeed still professes, that the Episcopal seat of St Peter is the first among those of the great sees. This must be clarified immediately to read first among equals of the successors to the holy Apostles, for the Church's 'collegiality' does not ascribe more 'spiritual authority' (or such) to any one bishop over another. The successors of the Apostles are the successors to the Apostles, equal as respects the charism of the apostolate and authority in 'rightly defining the Word of God's truth'. They are, nonetheless, accorded an organized hierarchy of honour and organizational authority, precisely as the Lord organized the ranks of the original twelve Apostles. Thus amongst these equals there is a 'first', not inasmuch as canonical or spiritual authority are concerned, but as respects organization, unity, and patrimony.

In this 'hierarchy of the hierarchs', the bishop of Rome, the descendent of St Peter, is as noted above ranked first of all. However, because this organization of bishops also professes that none is doctrinally flawless or inerrant, it is possible for one or another - or even whole successions of bishops - to fall into error or heresy. This is precisely the situation that the Church would and does proclaim with regard to the see of St Peter. While it rightly would hold first place among the sees of the Church, the departure from the Orthodox Faith by its patrimony means that this position shifts to the next in the hierarchy - namely, Constantinople."
Some of the most straightforward remarks in this regard actually come down to us from St Gregory the Great, pope of Rome in the sixth-seventh centuries A.D. His remarks were occasioned by the Emperor's application of the title 'Ecumenical Patriarch' to St John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople. Gregory was deeply disturbed by this title, not because he felt that its attribution to a patriarch other than that of the see of St Peter was improper, but because he felt the very notion of such a title or rank was incorrect (we must keep in mind that St Gregory understood 'ecumenical' to mean universal in authority and power, which is not how the term as it is used in the title 'ecumenical patriarch' has come down to us today'). In response to this, St Gregory writes to St John:


"Certainly Peter, the first of the Apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John -- what were these but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head [...] the prelates of this Apostolic See [i.e. Rome], which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them of being called 'universal' (oikoumenikos) by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. Yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or has seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren [...]"
(Excerpted from Book 5 of the collected epistles of St Gregory the Great of Rome, Epistle 18).

Later he writes in a similar vein:

"This name of Universality was offered by the Holy Synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the apostolic see which by the Providence of God I serve [i.e. the see of Rome]. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this from the mind of a Christian that any on should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honor of his brethren..."
(Book 5, Epistle 43)

When, a short time later he writes to the Emperor (Maurice) on the matter, he is yet more emphatic:

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others."
(Book 7, Epistle 33)

Later, he writes to the Bishop of Alexandria (Evlogios):

"Your Blessedness [...] You address me saying, 'As you have commanded'. This word 'command' I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am and who you are. For in position you are my brother, in character my father. [...] In the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself, who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg you, most sweet Holiness: do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands, is subtracted from yourself [...] For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally."
(Book 8, Epistle 30)

There are multiple things of note in these quotations, but among them I might simply point out Gregory's own insistence that, prior to his own day (he reposed in A.D. 604), no bishop of Rome had ever claimed episcopal primacy of authority."

« Last Edit: September 14, 2004, 12:11:44 AM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,236



« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2004, 03:14:05 AM »

Quote
MatthewPanchisin: I think that keeping matters in the appropriate context is most important. If Rome had not fallen into the error of heresy and there was no support for the Orthodox position I don't think the Orthodox would question primacy as Irenaeus had articulated, etc.
How does the absence of Roman Primacy affect the EO Church ? The EO Church has been without a Primate for nearly 1000 years now. What is the EO Church missing ?

Peace,
Stavro
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2004, 05:25:37 AM »

Dear lellimore,
have you read Abb+¬ Guett+¬e's work The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations?

From chapter 3
Quote
Rome was the centre of all communications between different parts of the Empire. The faithful crowded thither from all quarters—for political business or private interests—and thus her testimony as an Apostolic Church was strengthened by the faithful who came thither from all parts of the world, bringing the witness of all the Churches to which they severally belonged.

Such is the sense of a passage of St. Iren+ªus, of which the Roman theologians have made the strangest misuse. St. Ir+ªneus, In H+ªres. Lib. III. cap. iii. This great theologian, attacking the heretics who sought to corrupt the faithful at Rome, establishes against them the Catholic rule of faith, preserved everywhere and always." But," he adds, "as it would be very tedious to enumerate in such a work the succession of all the Churches, we will trace that of the very great and very ancient Church and known of all, which was founded and established at Rome by the two very glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; which possesses a tradition that comes from the Apostles as much as the Faith declared to men, and which has transmitted it to us through the succession of her Bishops; by that, we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should; for every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries." We must quote the text of St. Iren+ªus, that it may be compared with our translation, "Quoniam valde longum est, in hoc, tali volumine omnium eccelesiarum enumerare successiones; maxim+ª et antiquissim+ª et omnibus cognit+ª, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paullo, Rom+ª fundat+ª et constitut+ª Ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab Apostolis Traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquomodo, vel per coecitatem et malam sententiam pr+ªterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos, qui sunt undique fideles; in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea, qu+ª est ab Apostolis, Traditio."

The Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty. Instead of saying that the faithful of the whole world were obliged to go to Rome, because it was the Capital of the Empire, the seat of government, and the centre of all business, civil and political, they translate convenire ad by the words, to agree with—which is a misinterpretation; they make potentiorem principalitatem refer to the Church of Rome, and they see in this its primacy, whereas these words are only used in a general manner, and nothing indicates that they do not solely designate the capital and principal city of the Empire. Again, they translate, maxim+ª, antiquissim+ª, by greatest and most ancient, without reflecting that they thus attribute to St. Iren+ªus an assertion manifestly false; for, granting that the Church of Rome was the greatest of her day, she could not certainly be called the most ancient—every one knew that a great number of churches had been founded in the East before that of Rome. Moreover, their translation does not make the author say in conclusion, that the Apostolic tradition has been preserved at Rome, by those who were of all countries—(ab his qui sunt undique,) as the text requires, but like Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter to the Christians of the East, "In all that the faithful believe," not reflecting that this is a misconstruction, and that they are thus attributing nonsense to the good Father.

In the text as we render it all things hang together. St. Iren+ªus after having established that only the universal Faith should be received, points out to the heretics of that city the Church of Rome, as offering to them an evidence the more convincing that Apostolic tradition had been there preserved by the faithful of the whole world.

How then could St. Iren+ªus, whose purpose it is to give the universal Faith as the rule for private belief, and who enlarges precisely upon this point in the chapter from which the text is taken, logically say what is attributed to him by the Popes and their theologians? He would then have argued thus: It is necessary to adopt as the rule the belief of all the churches; but it suffices to appeal to that of the Church of Rome, to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy. St. Iren+ªus never expressed so unreasonable an opinion. He lays down as a principle the universal Faith as a rule, and he points out the Faith of the Church of Rome as true—thanks to the concourse of the faithful who assembled there from all parts, and who thus preserved there the Apostolic tradition. How did they preserve it? Because they would have protested against any change in the traditions of their own churches, to which they were witnesses at Rome. St. Iren+ªus does not give the pretended Divine authority of the Bishop of Rome, as the principle of the preservation of tradition in the Church of that city—but logically, he attributes that preservation to the faithful of other Churches who controlled her traditions by those of their own Churches, and who thus formed an invincible obstacle to innovation.

Further down in the text Guett+¬e establishes the reason why the text "every Church must agree" (from the passage you quoted) is not a correct translation.

John.
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2004, 05:27:10 AM »

How does the absence of Roman Primacy affect the EO Church ? The EO Church has been without a Primate for nearly 1000 years now. What is the EO Church missing ?

When Rome dropped the ball, it was picked up by Constantinople Cool

John.
Logged
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,236



« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2004, 05:33:56 AM »

Quote
When Rome dropped the ball, it was picked up by Constantinople
Oh .... thanks. That explains it all.  Smiley
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2004, 01:37:28 PM »

[How does the absence of Roman Primacy affect the EO Church ? The EO Church has been without a Primate for nearly 1000 years now. What is the EO Church missing ?]

Nothing!  Every Bishop and Patriarchate is a primate in the Orthodox Catholic Church.  The chief primate being Christ himself.

The RCC, even with the so called 'universal bishop' for the last 1000 years has not been able to keep unity within their church.  Orthodoxy has never had a reformation which has split the church into thousands of pieces like Rome has.  The Orthodox Catholic Church is much more united in dogma than the RCC and it's sui juris appendages.  Just talk lurk in any of their discussion groups.  Especially the 'Eastern Catholic united with Rome' one!

Orthodoc

Logged

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.
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,236



« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2004, 03:22:57 PM »

Thanks Orthodoc. I agree with you.
Then, the Roman Primacy is useless if the EO Church continued to grow in every aspect and survived for a the last 1000 years without this Primacy thing.

Peace,
Stavro
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2004, 04:21:45 PM »

In anticipation of further questions, here is  some further commentary by Matthew Steenberg from a thread on Monachos.net


The notion of distinguishing between Peter's confession and Peter's person in the ascription of the title 'Rock' by Christ has always struck me as a bit dualistic. Both are certainly true, and we must keep in mind that many Orthodox Fathers ascribe the title directly to Peter's person, without equivocation, as warranted by his confession. The desire to divide the two has, I assume, been occassioned over the course of history precisely by the desire to compare and relate the RC and Orthodox understandings of Peter's episcopacy and its place in relation to the other patriarchates.

But as much as both statements are true (namely, that the title 'rock' applies both to Peter himself and to his confession), so both are incorrect and dualist. If discussions such as this have anything to learn from the long history of Orthodox ascetical theology, it is that person and confession can only be divided and separated if neither one is whole or complete. True confession is the fruit and manifestation of purified personhood, and one's person embodies and makes real his or her confession.

For Orthodoxy, St Peter is the rock -- the rock upon which Christ will and has built His Church. This is true of Peter's person, for, as Aaron noted, Peter is the first among bishops, the prototype and model of hierarchs. It is also true of his confession, for Christ as the living Son of God is the heart and life of the Church, and without that confession she does not stand.

This is all, however, somewhat separated from a discussion on the 'primacy' of any one bishop over another. We have seen, in another thread, quotations from multiple Fathers who show that this 'first position' of St Peter and of his patriarchate does not equate to primacy of authority, rule or power. We have also seen, in the current thread, that the earliest Church, that still reigned over by the Apostles, honoured St Peter but called its first council under the omophor of St James.
Logged
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,831



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2004, 05:07:07 PM »

"It would be too tedious, in a work like this, to go through the succession lists of all the Churches.  We shall, therefore, take just one, the greatest, most ancient Church, the Church known to all, the Church founded and established in Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.  By showing that the tradition which she received from the apostles, the faith which she proclaims to men, has come down to us through the succession of bishops, we confute all those who, in whatever manner,...set up conventicles.  With this Church, because of its more excellent origin, every Church (in other words, the faithful everywhere) must agree."

Yes, it's definitely saying that Rome is the greatest (as in most honorable) see, and that because of its antiquity and direct link with the chiefs of the Apostles, there is much there that would cause other Churches to defer to Her.  

But this quote seems to me to be dealing with the connection with the Apostles themselves, who were and are the source of the original deposit of faith -- the quote was about apostolic succession, after all.  Given the closeness of the see with the two greatest apostles, the Roman see would naturally have a better idea of that deposit's content.  It does not, however, preclude the see of Rome from straying from that deposit.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2004, 06:38:55 PM »

[It seems to me that here we see the greatest second-century theologian fully supporting the Roman primacy, and also that the ground of his support is not Rome's position as the imperial capital, but rather its status as the church of Peter and Paul.  Anyone care to comment on this?]

Let's what other early church fathers had to say about Papal Primacy -

Pope St. Gregory:
“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a God, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, p. 226).

Pope St. Gregory to the Pope of Alexandria:
“Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity” (Ibid., p. 227).


St. Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Church:

"If anyone considers and examines these things, there is no need of a lengthy discussion and arguments. Proof for faith is easy in a brief statement of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter: 'I say to thee,' He says, 'thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven. ' Upon him, being one, He builds His Church, and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles, and says: 'As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained, yet that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. SURELY THE REST OF THE APOSTLES ALSO WERE THAT WHICH PETER WAS, ENDOWED WITH AN EQUAL PARTNERSHIP OF OFFICE AND OF POWER..."



St. James, Bishop of Nisibis:

“Our Lord Jesus Christ is the firm and true foundation; and upon this rock our faith is established. Therefore, when any one has come to faith, he is set upon a firm rock.... And Simon, who was called a rock, was deservedly called a rock because of his faith”


St. John Chrysostom, 53rd Homily on St. Matthew:

"The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession."


St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Nestorius:

"Peter and John were equal in dignity and honor. Christ is the foundation of all -the unshakeable Rock upon which we are all built as a spiritual edifice."


St. Augustine, Retractions, 13th Sermon:

"Christ said to Peter... I will build thee upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee. Those who wished to be built among men said, 'I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas' - however, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon the Rock say, I am of Jesus Christ."

===========

Orthodoc

Logged

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.
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,831



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2004, 07:57:07 PM »

Nice, Orthodoc.  Especially like that last one from Blessed Augustine.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2004, 08:50:56 PM »

Dear all,

I think the manner and the way in which the Latin's have interpreted the writings of St. Augustine say's much in much the same way they have developed from Holy writ  Papal Supremacy/Infallibility...

Here are athe words of a few more western Saint's;

St. Ambrose ("On the Incarnation"): "Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavor then, thyself to be a rock - thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock."

St. Jerome (6th book on Matthew): "Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rock. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named."

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
« Last Edit: September 14, 2004, 08:51:24 PM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2004, 09:15:12 PM »

Also, notice that Irenaeus attributes Rome's prominence partly to its founding by Peter AND Paul (not just Peter).  Also, if I'm not mistaken Gregory the Great mentions that there were three "sees of Peter"--Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2004, 10:17:14 PM »

I think that as indicated in the writings of St Gregory the Great above we can see every word written in the spirit of the utmost humility in regards to St. Gregory the Great's considrations rendered toward his brother Bishops. As such surely as a result of that disposition I would think that the other Bishops would hold such a man in the utmost esteem, hence primacy would then be no problem whatsoever if the Doctrine's that are embraced by Rome nowadays did not exist. I think they have painted themselves into a corner. Embracing humilty in accepting what the Orthodox Church always has taught in reality is the only paint remover that would be effective. Having said that, as a result of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility it is no wonder that our Orthodox Bishops and the Orthodox faithful look at the Bishop of Rome perplexed and with much concern.

This is all shown quite well in the explanation of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew by the Blessed Theophylact below.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. Once again Peter leaps forward with fervor and confesses that He is truly the Son of God. He did not say, thou art the anointed one, a Son of God", without the article, "the" , but with the article, “the Son”, that is, He Who is the One and the Only, not a son by grace, but He Who is begotten of the same essence as the Father. For there were also many other christs, anointed ones, such as all the priests and kings; but the Christ, with the article, there is but One.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Who is in heaven. He calls Peter blessed for having received knowledge by divine grace. And by commending Peter, He thereby shows the opinions of other men to be false. For he calls him "Bar Jona", that is, son of Jona", as if saying, "Just as you are the son of Jona, so am I the Son of My Father in heaven, and of one essence with Him." He calls this knowledge "revelation", speaking of hidden and unknown things that were disclosed by the Father.

And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. The Lord gives Peter a great reward, that the Church will be built on him. Since Peter confessed him as Son of God, the Lord says, "This confession which you have made shall be the foundation of those who believe, so that every man who intends to build the house of faith shall lay down this confession as the foundation." For even if we should construct a myriad of virtues, but do not have as a foundation the Orthodox confession, our construction is rotten. By saying "My Church" He shows that He is the Master of all, for the whole universe is the servant of God. The gates of hades are those persecutors who from time to time would send Christians to hades. But the heretics, too, are gates leading to hades. The Church, then has prevailed over many persecutors and many heretics. The Church is also each one of us who has become a house of God. For if we have been established on the confession of Christ, the gates of hades, which are our sins, will not prevail against us. It was from these gates that David, to, had been lifted up when he said "O thou that dost raise me up from the gates of death" (ps. 9:13) From what gates, O David? From the twin gates of murder and adultery.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in the heavens. He spoke as God, with authority, "I will give unto thee." For as the Father gave you the revelation, so I give you the keys. By "keys" understand that which binds or looses transgressions, namely, penance or absolution; for those who like Peter, have been deemed worthy of the grace of the episcopate, have the authority to absolve or to bind, Even though the words "I will give unto thee" were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, 'Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted."(Jn. 20:23) The verb in Greek for "ye remit", aphete, is second person plural, obviously not referring to one person only. Had the authority been granted to Peter alone, the text would read, "whose soever sins thou remittest", but since "ye" is plural, we understand that the gift was given to all the apostles. Also, the words "I will give" indicate a future time, namely after the resurrection. The actual granting of the authority to remit sins takes place on the occasion described in Jn. 20:23, when, after the resurrection, the Lord breaths on all the assembled disciples. "The heavens" also mean the virtues, and the keys to the heavens are labors. For by laboring we enter into each of the virtues as if by means of keys that are used to open. If I do not labor but only know the good, I possess only the key of knowledge but remain outside. That man is bound in the heavens, that is, in the virtues, who does not walk in them, but he who is diligent in aquiring virtues is loosed in them. Therefore let us not have sins, so that we may not be bound by the chains of our own sins.

Hope this helps.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin


Logged
smalltowngl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2004, 12:32:40 PM »

Orthodox and MatthewPanchisin and anyone else, do you have links for an online source for you quotes?  If so, could I get them?

In my conversion process, I've gone back and forth over the teachings of the papacy.  I never could find any hard evidence for it even when given the siting for certain church fathers that supposedly were claiming supremecy, but I never could find anything that disproved it either.  

If you believe that the church fathers hold any clout with the faith today, then I don't know how the quotes wouldn't disprove that claim.  I would like to read them in context before I swallow it as fact though.

Thanks in advance for you help.
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2004, 01:16:31 PM »

[Orthodox and MatthewPanchisin and anyone else, do you have links for an online source for you quotes? If so, could I get them?]

Try -

http://www.aloofhosting.com/joesuaiden/apologetics/stgregory.html

Look under Books in the following website for Abbe Guette 'The Papacy'.  If this doesn't help or is not what you are looking for let me know.


http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/essays.html


http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/rock.html


=========

Orthodoc
Logged

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.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2004, 08:47:32 PM »

Is Irenaeus saying that there were no Christians in Rome prior to Peter and/or Paul's arrival???

JoeS  

//Also, notice that Irenaeus attributes Rome's prominence partly to its founding by Peter AND Paul (not just Peter).  Also, if I'm not mistaken Gregory the Great mentions that there were three "sees of Peter"--Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria.//
Logged
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2004, 08:58:10 PM »

I think that Ireneaus's statement on the subject speaks for itself.  It's no good saying that this is only true insofar as the Roman Church adheres to true doctrine, since everyone must agree with the Roman Church.  Whereas it does not follow that the Roman bishop is therefore dictator of the Church in a jurisdictional sense, that all must be in agreement with him in a doctrinal sense is clearly stated.  Certainly refusing to be in communion with him cannot be justified.
Logged

NULL
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2004, 10:15:16 PM »

Dear Jack,

Keep in mind that Rome was in communion with the Orthodox Church when Saint Irenaeus was writing somewhere around the 2nd century.  Saint Irenaeus was not addressing the papacy and the same Church that the Latin's have developed into today. The witness of Orthodox Saints and following the teachings of the Orthodox Church and the Church Fathers within the context of the Orthodox seven Ecumenical Councils to which the Orthodox Church has remained faithful to justifies not being in communion with the Bishop of Rome, for the Orthodox Church teaches that Rome has fallen into error or heresy. Now if Rome was not in error then the Latin's would still be Orthodox and this discussion would not be necessary. The reason that it is necessary is because of the actions of the Latin's. As such when you say "Certainly refusing to be in communion with him cannot be justified." then you are saying our hierarchs and the venerable Church Fathers are not able to discern truth from falsehood. I have looked into the matter at some length and there is no doubt in my mind that the Orthodox Church proclaims the truth. Do keep in mind that there have been several Bishops of Rome who have taught and continue to teach that which is considered to be heretical by the Orthodox Church as she remains faithful to the teachings of the Fathers. Rome's doctrines are subject to change...

Orthodox doctrine has not and will not.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
Logged
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2004, 02:45:26 PM »

Dear Jack,

Keep in mind that Rome was in communion with the Orthodox Church when Saint Irenaeus was writing somewhere around the 2nd century.  Saint Irenaeus was not addressing the papacy and the same Church that the Latin's have developed into today. The witness of Orthodox Saints and following the teachings of the Orthodox Church and the Church Fathers within the context of the Orthodox seven Ecumenical Councils to which the Orthodox Church has remained faithful to justifies not being in communion with the Bishop of Rome, for the Orthodox Church teaches that Rome has fallen into error or heresy. Now if Rome was not in error then the Latin's would still be Orthodox and this discussion would not be necessary. The reason that it is necessary is because of the actions of the Latin's. As such when you say "Certainly refusing to be in communion with him cannot be justified." then you are saying our hierarchs and the venerable Church Fathers are not able to discern truth from falsehood. I have looked into the matter at some length and there is no doubt in my mind that the Orthodox Church proclaims the truth. Do keep in mind that there have been several Bishops of Rome who have taught and continue to teach that which is considered to be heretical by the Orthodox Church as she remains faithful to the teachings of the Fathers. Rome's doctrines are subject to change...

Orthodox doctrine has not and will not.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin


But if we take Irenaeus's statement at face value, saying that the Pope is a heretic is inadmissible.  Orthodoxy is, at least in part, defined by agreement with the Apostolic See.
Logged

NULL
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2004, 03:28:15 PM »

Taking things at face value can lead to misunderstandings and confusion. There is no mention of the Bishop of Rome a human being incapable of error, or for that matter any human being infallible. Again, Saint Ireneaus's writings say nothing of the Church of Rome or the Bishop of Rome being eternally or not capable of doing anything incorrect. Surely the writings of Saint Ireneaus had been directed toward the Church of Rome which at the time was the Orthodox Church. It is reasonable to doubt that Saint Iraneaus would have considered many of the Latin's actions which occurred after what he had written in or around the 2nd century as such his statement "With this Church, because of its more excellent origin, every Church (in other words, the faithful everywhere) must agree." would not be applicable to the selling of indulgences for example. Surely, the reasonable faithful would not agree with such an activity, as such we can plainly see that the more excellent origin is capable of things that are NOT of a more excellent origin or error. It is far to ridiculous to assume otherwise which is what happens when writings are taken out of context and misapplied for supportive reasons in unreasonable arguments. Having said that, people can believe whatever they want and read into anything whatever they want as well, but there comes a time when men should look at reality like it or not for the sake of truth not agenda's.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
« Last Edit: September 17, 2004, 08:10:24 PM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
optxogokcoc
orthodoxos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2004, 11:15:33 AM »

"How does the absence of Roman Primacy affect the EO Church ? ".
There is no absence of "Roman Primacy" or any affect on the Church due to the fact that it NEVER WAS Roman Primacy.

"The EO Church has been without a Primate for nearly 1000 years now".
Sorry to dissapoint you my friend. Lord Jesus Chirst our PRIMATE is well and alive.

" What is the EO Church missing ?".
Heresy.
Logged
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2004, 11:24:49 AM »

"How does the absence of Roman Primacy affect the EO Church ? ".

How does the absence of all of the other Patriarchates of the original Church effect the RC church?

...sorry, I'm being a pain...
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2004, 12:16:40 PM »

You are not being a pain, but to whom are you addressing with your question, msguided?

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2004, 12:18:33 PM »

I dunno, better it be ignored...I saw the recent post above mine and had a gut reaction

Forgive me!
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,719


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2004, 01:29:36 PM »

Nah, she's just being rhetorical and slightly polemical, I think.  It's cute!
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
CatholicEagle
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


HH St.Pius X, Pope of Rome, Ecumenical Pontiff


« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2004, 04:30:00 PM »

Msguided:
We,Catholics, truly have all the patriarchates of the past except Constantinople. There's a patriarch of Jerusalem, Patiarch of Antioch, Patriarch of Alexandria,and above them is the Patriarch of Rome,God's Vicar on earth.
Logged
penelope
If I love the sea and all that is sealike, and love it most when it angrily contradicts me...
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


OC.net


« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2004, 05:57:03 PM »

Phony patriarchates...they weren't even set up until the Crusades, and only in opposition to the patriarchs who were already there.
Logged

Let me love myself only if I love thee and do all things for thy sake.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,719


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2004, 06:14:36 PM »

Right, and there are more than one for some sees.  The see of Antioch, for example, has like three Catholic claimants--Melkite, Maronite, and Syriac--and if I'm not mistaken, the Melkite patriarch also has the sees of Alexandria and Jerusalem as part of his title.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,831



WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2004, 06:27:18 PM »

Wow...how in the world does that bring about the administrative unity the RC says it prides itself on?!
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,719


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2004, 07:10:58 PM »

Well, practically (if not theoretically), there is only one Patriarch who ultimately calls the shots, so there is administrative unity, even with Patriarchs who act as heads of their respective Eastern Catholic Churches.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #33 on: October 22, 2004, 06:24:54 AM »

Wow...how in the world does that bring about the administrative unity the RC says it prides itself on?!

Wait till you see how it is in Sydney Wink

1. Maronite Catholic bishop
2. Melkite Catholic bishop
3. Greek Catholic bishop
4. Ukranian Catholic bishop
5. Armenian Catholic bishop
6. Chaldean Catholic bishop
7. Coptic Catholic bishop
8. Ethiopian Catholic bishop
9. Malabarese Catholic bishop
10. Malankarese Catholic bishop
11. Russian Catholic bishop
12. Syrian Catholic bishop

Sydney has 12 overlapping dioceses and bishops all based on one's racial origin.
Logged
CatholicEagle
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


HH St.Pius X, Pope of Rome, Ecumenical Pontiff


« Reply #34 on: October 22, 2004, 05:32:48 PM »

Wait till you see how it is in Sydney Wink

1. Maronite Catholic bishop
2. Melkite Catholic bishop
3. Greek Catholic bishop
4. Ukranian Catholic bishop
5. Armenian Catholic bishop
6. Chaldean Catholic bishop
7. Coptic Catholic bishop
8. Ethiopian Catholic bishop
9. Malabarese Catholic bishop
10. Malankarese Catholic bishop
11. Russian Catholic bishop
12. Syrian Catholic bishop

Sydney has 12 overlapping dioceses and bishops all based on one's racial origin.
And all of those bishops acknowledge the Pope as the highest patriarch. They all mention the Patriarch of Rome in their liturgies, but could you get Rocor to mention the Patriarch fo Constantinople in their liturgy?
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 22, 2004, 05:42:03 PM »

And all of those bishops acknowledge the Pope as the highest patriarch. They all mention the Patriarch of Rome in their liturgies, but could you get Rocor to mention the Patriarch fo Constantinople in their liturgy?

Why would they? The Patriarch of Constantinople is not their patriarch, nor their superpatriarch. The head of ROCOR is Metropolitan Laurus, and the highest patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church is Pat. Alexy.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2004, 05:43:06 PM »

An addendum: in the earliest texts one only commemorated his local bishop in the liturgy.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
CatholicEagle
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


HH St.Pius X, Pope of Rome, Ecumenical Pontiff


« Reply #37 on: October 22, 2004, 10:43:35 PM »

Why would they? The Patriarch of Constantinople is not their patriarch, nor their superpatriarch. The head of ROCOR is Metropolitan Laurus, and the highest patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church is Pat. Alexy.

Anastasios
I purposely put Constantinople in to not start a big ROCOR/MP fight.
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #38 on: October 23, 2004, 01:53:02 AM »

And all of those bishops acknowledge the Pope as the highest patriarch. They all mention the Patriarch of Rome in their liturgies, but could you get Rocor to mention the Patriarch fo Constantinople in their liturgy?

You misunderstand. The situation with more than one bishop in a city is highly uncanonical, and this is happening under your centralised, protected from error authority system. It seems that bishops in the Catholic church are something less than they were in the early church.
Logged
optxogokcoc
orthodoxos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #39 on: October 31, 2004, 05:25:48 AM »

Per aspera ad astra.
Logged
iconophile
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


OC.net


« Reply #40 on: November 14, 2004, 07:12:26 PM »

Jurisdictional overlapping is hardly unique to Catholicism, as you all should surely recognize. The difference is the Catholics can all receive communion in one another's churches, unlike many of the jurisdictions that call themselves Orthodox...
Daniel, making his debut
Logged
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,831



WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 14, 2004, 08:31:49 PM »

The difference is the Catholics can all receive communion in one another's churches, unlike many of the jurisdictions that call themselves Orthodox...

Hmm...examples, please?  'Cause they might make a huge difference into whether or not you have a valid point....

Quote
Daniel, making his debut

Hey!  Welcome to the board!
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
iconophile
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


OC.net


« Reply #42 on: November 14, 2004, 11:16:55 PM »

Dear Pedro- Actually, I  think the Catholics do not technically have duplicate bishops. For example, there is a Roman bishop of Cleveland, but the Byzantine bishop is in Parma. I know, it is a bit of a fiction.
What I mean is that a Ruthenian Catholic may take communion at a Romanian or Latin or Melkite or Ukrainian church, with no hassle or question, beyond "are you Catholic?" Yet  an OCA Christian would be denied communion at a ROCOR parish, would he not? I need not belabor the juridictional problems among the Orthodox Churches.
I am, to be straightforward, a Byzantine Catholic, and one much attracted to the Orthodox Church. What keeps me here is precisely this matter of jurisdictional confusion, as well as the tremendous witness of Rome's continued adherence to the Apostolic Teaching on contraception, which I do not see in Orthodoxy.
-Daniel, bracing himself for the onslaught
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #43 on: November 15, 2004, 12:26:59 AM »

iconophile,
I am in the GOAA, my wife is from ACROD. We have never been denied the Gifts in our local ROCOR parish. Indeed, this past week, while at the GOA Pittsburgh Metropolis catherdral on other business, I verified my permission to receive the Eucharist in a ROCOR parish.
Those in OCA may have different experiences, but this is my experience.

Demetri
« Last Edit: November 15, 2004, 12:29:42 AM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #44 on: November 15, 2004, 01:20:29 AM »


Dear Daniel,

No he would not be, Orthodox Christians from the OCA frequently receive communion at ROCOR parishes.  

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin


Logged
Tags: That Irenaeus quote 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   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 0.139 seconds with 72 queries.