Papal supremacy claims

[Cromulent]

Hello all,

I am currently a prospective convert to Orthodoxy. However, a friend of mine, a Roman Catholic, was very shocked when he learned about my decision, and deluged me with links to various Catholic websites that claimed to find a justification for the position of the Pope in the Roman Catholic belief in the Fathers... and I do not quite know what to make of them, since I have not yet read much of them (though I hope to change this soon). It does smell a bit like Protestant proof texting to me. But if anyone could explain the quotes from these websites, fo rinstance, from an Orthodox perspective I would be grateful: http://catholictradition.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_catholictradition_archive.html#110537139744049933 http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/gregory.htm

IC XC NIKA

[Arystarcus]

Greetings Cromulent and welcome to the forum!   

I've not yet looked over those links yet as I am on my way offline for the evening, but in regard to the Papal claims, you may be interested in this link:

http://www.odox.net/Orthodox-Practice.htm

On this link, you can download a book that deals with the issue of papal supremacy from an Orthodox perspective. It pvoides other quotes from the Church fathers that show that the papal supremecy was not an open and shut case. I think you would enjoy giving it a look over, perhaps it may answer some of your question and also give you some questions to pass along to your friend as well.  You will need to have Adobe Acrobat reader to view it though, but if you do not have this already, you can download it for free.

In the meanwhile, you may also wish to spend some time on the "Orthodox-Catholic Discussion" board on the forum, as this topic has been frequently brought up and you will probably find some more information on there that would be useful to you.

Hope that I have been of some help!

In Christ,
Aaron

PS- from you user name, I am guessing that you are a fan of the Simpsons.    "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man!"

Edna KrabappelL: Embiggen? I'd never heard that word before I moved to Springfield.
Miss Hoover: I can't see why not. it's a perfectly cromulent word

[Αριστοκλής]

Additionally, we have had some extensive discussions here at OC.net

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php?PHPSESSID=6c98272e0d21878e60158489e85ce758&topic=2188.0

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php?PHPSESSID=6c98272e0d21878e60158489e85ce758&topic=2701.0

Welcome to the forum, Cromulent and put a BIG pot of coffee on for these two threads!

Demetr

[Justin Kissel]

Generally, the Fathers spoke highly of the pope of Rome because he was the head of the Church and because he was orthodox in faith and practice. The problem is in trying to take these compliments and form a theology around them. If you look at what St. Gregory the Theologian said about St. Basil (or St. Athanasius), for example, you would think that St. Gregory spoke with what appeared to be almost god-like reverence. In fact, Sts. Basil and Gregory had something of a rocky, love-hate friendship, especially later in life. Obviously there was some discontinuity between rhetoric, reality, and theology, and while I'm certainly not going to accuse St. Gregory of lying , I'm also not going to take literally St. Gregory's words that paint St. Basil as greater than all the apostles, prophets, etc. The point was, Basil was great and Gregory wanted to say so. Reading more into it than that will lead to ruin. We find something similar with many of the quotes from the Church Fathers about Peter. Various Fathers will say that Peter is the rock, that Peter holds the keys, that Peter was the leader of the apostles.

This is all very true, but it is not the end of the story. There is much more, both alternative views of these things (the rock, the keys, etc.), and various evidences that show that all of this ta-do about Peter meant absolutely nothing apart from doctrinal orthodoxy and practice. Catholics often bring up some of St. Cyprian's words about the place of Rome, for example, and certainly St. Cyprian said many high things about the see of Rome. Yet, these words did not prevent St. Cyprian from later getting into a doctrinal dispute with the Pope of Rome: a doctrinal dispute which showed that he neither felt the Pope to be infallible nor having jurisdiction over him.

The history of Constantinople is like an ongoing history of battling claims of primacy within the Church. Just looking at an overview of the 4th century can be interesting. Catholics sometimes quote St. John Chrysostom (Archbp. of Constantinople at one point) to defend papal supremacy. Interestingly, they normally do not mention that Rome was not in communion with St. John's predecessors, St. Nektarios and St. Gregory the Theologian. Rome wasn't in communion with them, but most of the rest of the Church was, and it didn't matter a whit that Rome hadn't given the ok for St. Gregory or St. Nektarios to be patriarchs. In fact, ignoring it's own history (e.g., St. Ambrose of Milan), Rome tried to argue against the elevation of St. Netkarios on canonical grounds, and never did recognize him. Rome's "supremacy" did not extend into reality at that point (as it would later extend into reality in the west), and the easterners just went about their ecclesiastical business. The same thing can be said about canons not accepted by the Roman Church, but always accepted by eastern canonical law. Rome was the leader, and Rome was lauded as being important, but when it came down to the task of actually administering the Church, each bishop or local council of bishops did what they thought best.

Lists of what the Church Fathers said are fine. The important thing is just to have a context in which to understand them. If you want to know about papal supremacy, I would suggest reading lots of books on the history of the early Church--from all different perspectives. Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox, Catholic, I've seen historians in all sorts of churches who bring something good to the table that others haven't. And the longest or most detailed histories are not necessarily the best ones either; sometimes a short one which happens to mention some unique situations rarely mentioned elsewhere can open up whole new lines of exploration which you otherwise would have missed. If you have a specific stumbling block (quote) in mind, I'm sure many people here would be glad to offer an alternative interpretation or two. But generally speaking, the best thing to do is just to dig into it and let history itself say what it wants to say.

[Matthew777]

If renouncing the papacy would be a stumbling block to your converting to Orthodoxy, I would suggest that you consider the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church.

What is a Byzantine Catholic?

"In the 1500's there was a large region of eastern Europe which entered into full communion with Rome. This region of eastern Europe had been in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople and followed Eastern Orthodox traditions. Different parts of this region came into communion with Rome at different times and for different reasons. The faithful in this region continued to follow the same ancient form of Christianity. Among other things, the faithful retained their liturgies, which includes the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. They also retained the eastern tradition that married men may become parish priests, but not bishops. Today, this region of Eastern Europe is spread through Ukraine, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, former Yugoslavia."
http://www.saintirene.org/stirfaq.htm

[Matthew777]

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

[Anastasios]

Matthew,

I am going to have to ask you to stop suggesting that people convert to Catholicism.  It's against the forum rules. We let it slide a few times but this is too much.  You can say whatever you want in a private message.

Thank you for your consideration,

Anastasios

[Jakub]

I thought he was Orthodox ?

Time for a break from here ...until things settle down.

james

[Anastasios]

I thought he was Orthodox ?

Time for a break from here ...until things settle down.

james

Yeah, he's Orthodox and suggesting some people should convert to Catholicism.

Anastasios

[JoeS]

In the very beginning Matthew sounded genuinely interested in what Orthodoxy had to offer, but the more he posted the more he is started to sound trollish. I have this opinion that Matthew still believes what the Roman church teaches and wants us to dispell his beliefs. This website is really not in this sort of business. But what this site is in the business of is to provide insite, information and spiritual help to those who truly want to learn about the One Holy Ancient Church of the East.

JoeS

[Tabby]

granted..Matthew seems to have a strong position of the RCC.  Is it because he is a new convert?  (still needs ALOT of learning?)...

this seems to be the case...I dont think though i would go so far as calling him a "troll".  I dont see him being a "troll"...but maybe just unlearned?

I think it is "unorthodox" for an orthodox to tell another to convert to another belief...it would be like me as an RCC at an RCC site telling a RCC to convert to another belief.   And this is NOT to knock you or anything, but it seems that you still carry alot of the belief of the RCC...you either accept it or reject it.

On the other hand....maybe matthew in his post didnt mean to make it sound that way?  Maybe he had reasons and wasnt clear enough?

[Cromulent]

Additionally, we have had some extensive discussions here at OC.net

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php?PHPSESSID=6c98272e0d21878e60158489e85ce758&topic=2188.0

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php?PHPSESSID=6c98272e0d21878e60158489e85ce758&topic=2701.0

Welcome to the forum, Cromulent and put a BIG pot of coffee on for these two threads!

Demetr

Thanks. Whew, it took me almost three hours to get through those threads, and I ended up going back and taking notes. I especially liked the point that pious hyperbole was common in those days, and Byzantino's quotation of Avitus of Vienne writing to the Patriarch of Jerusalem: "Your apostolate exercises a primacy granted to it by God: and it is careful to show that it occupies a principal place in the Church not only by its privileges, but by its merits." That quote would doubtless appear in those lists of patristic citations purporting to prove Papal Supremacy if it were applied to Rome.

I also liked Linus' comments that the Pope probably enjoyed more than a primacy of honor, and probably had a greater role than most Orthodox today are willing to admit.

Lists of what the Church Fathers said are fine. The important thing is just to have a context in which to understand them. If you want to know about papal supremacy, I would suggest reading lots of books on the history of the early Church--from all different perspectives. Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox, Catholic, I've seen historians in all sorts of churches who bring something good to the table that others haven't. And the longest or most detailed histories are not necessarily the best ones either; sometimes a short one which happens to mention some unique situations rarely mentioned elsewhere can open up whole new lines of exploration which you otherwise would have missed. If you have a specific stumbling block (quote) in mind, I'm sure many people here would be glad to offer an alternative interpretation or two. But generally speaking, the best thing to do is just to dig into it and let history itself say what it wants to say.

Thanks for that. Do you have any books in particular to recommend?

There are, actually, some quotes I'd like opinions on -- or at least, the context, since I don't have access to the works cited. They come from the website I posted earlier:

Pope St. Boniface (d. 422): "... it is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to it's fellowship." (Ep. 14, 1)

Pope St. Leo The Great (d. 461): "Though priests have a like dignity, yet they have not an equal jurisdiction, since even among the most blessed apostles, as there was a likeness of honor, so was there a certain distinction of power, and the election of all being equal, pre-eminence over the rest was given to one, from which type the distinction between the bishops also has risen, and it was provided by an important arrangement, that all should not claim to themselves power over all, but that in every province there should be one, whose sentence should be considered the first among his brethren; and others again, seated in the greater cities, should undertake a larger care, through whom the direction of the Universal Church should converge to the one See of Peter, and nothing anywhere disagree with its head." (Ep. 14)

Pope St. Gelasius (d. 496): "Yet we do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the Universal Church, namely, that as the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by the judgments of any bishops, whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgment on its verdict, the canons providing that an appeal should be to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeal against its judgment." (Thiel, Ep. 26)

I ask these in particular because a common response to such quotes is that they only indicate a primacy of honor, or are pious hyperbole -- and usually, yes, they are and such a response is right on the mark. But these seem quite specific as to the universal jurisdiction of Rome, not just its honor as the see of Peter.

[Ian Lazarus]

Dear Cromulent:


I can recommend afew books on the subject:


"The Truth:  Waht every Roman Catholic Should Know About Orthodoxy"  By Clark Carlton (the entire catechism is worth getting BTW) ISBN 0-9649141-8-2

Two Paths: Papal Monarchy/ Concilliar Tradition by Michael Whelton, ISBN 0-9649141-5-8

Both are by Regina Orthodox Press

www.reginaorthodoxpress.com

Give them a read.  You'll find them most enlightening!


Peace.

Ian Lazarus :grommit:

[Frederic]

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

I have always wondered why προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης is always translated "which presides over love", which is awkward. Why not "which defends love", "which takes care of love"? This would be clearer and this meaning exists in Herodotus. Is Herodotus too old a reference?

φὰς αὐτὸς ἱκανὸς εἶναι τῶν ἑωυτοῦ προκατῆσθαι. saying that he was able by himself to take care of his own. (Herodotus, Histories, book 8, paragraph 36)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh8030.htm

If the verb on both occurrences meant "preside", would not it have been easier to say προκάθηται τῆς ἀγάπης ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων?

[ialmisry]

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

I have always wondered why προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης is always translated "which presides over love", which is awkward. Why not "which defends love", "which takes care of love"? This would be clearer and this meaning exists in Herodotus. Is Herodotus too old a reference?

φὰς αὐτὸς ἱκανὸς εἶναι τῶν ἑωυτοῦ προκατῆσθαι. saying that he was able by himself to take care of his own. (Herodotus, Histories, book 8, paragraph 36)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh8030.htm

If the verb on both occurrences meant "preside", would not it have been easier to say προκάθηται τῆς ἀγάπης ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων?

More to the point, at the time "Regions of the Romans" would have meant Rome the city.  It did not become synonymous with the whole commonwealth of the empire until after Caracalla made all his subjects citizens in the third century.

[IoanC]

Elder Arsenie Papacioc of Romania would say that three main mistakes were made since the beginning of mankind. 1. The fall into sin 2. The betrayal of Judas 3. Papal infallibility. So, the pope is considered Christ's vicar on earth, as if Christ is not alive and leading The Church Himself. And, of course, only Christ is infallible.

[Cyrillic]

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

I have always wondered why προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης is always translated "which presides over love", which is awkward. Why not "which defends love", "which takes care of love"? This would be clearer and this meaning exists in Herodotus. Is Herodotus too old a reference?

φὰς αὐτὸς ἱκανὸς εἶναι τῶν ἑωυτοῦ προκατῆσθαι. saying that he was able by himself to take care of his own. (Herodotus, Histories, book 8, paragraph 36)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh8030.htm

If the verb on both occurrences meant "preside", would not it have been easier to say προκάθηται τῆς ἀγάπης ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων?

More to the point, at the time "Regions of the Romans" would have meant Rome the city.  It did not become synonymous with the whole commonwealth of the empire until after Caracalla made all his subjects citizens in the third century.

Perhaps the whole of Latium as well.

[Schultz]

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

I have always wondered why προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης is always translated "which presides over love", which is awkward. Why not "which defends love", "which takes care of love"? This would be clearer and this meaning exists in Herodotus. Is Herodotus too old a reference?

φὰς αὐτὸς ἱκανὸς εἶναι τῶν ἑωυτοῦ προκατῆσθαι. saying that he was able by himself to take care of his own. (Herodotus, Histories, book 8, paragraph 36)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh8030.htm

If the verb on both occurrences meant "preside", would not it have been easier to say προκάθηται τῆς ἀγάπης ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων?

More to the point, at the time "Regions of the Romans" would have meant Rome the city.  It did not become synonymous with the whole commonwealth of the empire until after Caracalla made all his subjects citizens in the third century.

Perhaps the whole of Latium as well.

When my pointer hovered over the title of this thread in the Recent Posts box and I saw "Matthew777" in the truncated summary, I got all excited.  Long term posters will imagine my disappointment when I clicked through and saw it was just from a quote of a post of his from 2005. 

[Cyrillic]

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

I have always wondered why προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης is always translated "which presides over love", which is awkward. Why not "which defends love", "which takes care of love"? This would be clearer and this meaning exists in Herodotus. Is Herodotus too old a reference?

φὰς αὐτὸς ἱκανὸς εἶναι τῶν ἑωυτοῦ προκατῆσθαι. saying that he was able by himself to take care of his own. (Herodotus, Histories, book 8, paragraph 36)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh8030.htm

If the verb on both occurrences meant "preside", would not it have been easier to say προκάθηται τῆς ἀγάπης ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων?

More to the point, at the time "Regions of the Romans" would have meant Rome the city.  It did not become synonymous with the whole commonwealth of the empire until after Caracalla made all his subjects citizens in the third century.

Perhaps the whole of Latium as well.

When my pointer hovered over the title of this thread in the Recent Posts box and I saw "Matthew777" in the truncated summary, I got all excited.  Long term posters will imagine my disappointment when I clicked through and saw it was just from a quote of a post of his from 2005. 

Ah well, people usually get disappointed when they find out it's me   

[jmbejdl]

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

I have always wondered why προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης is always translated "which presides over love", which is awkward. Why not "which defends love", "which takes care of love"? This would be clearer and this meaning exists in Herodotus. Is Herodotus too old a reference?

φὰς αὐτὸς ἱκανὸς εἶναι τῶν ἑωυτοῦ προκατῆσθαι. saying that he was able by himself to take care of his own. (Herodotus, Histories, book 8, paragraph 36)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh8030.htm

If the verb on both occurrences meant "preside", would not it have been easier to say προκάθηται τῆς ἀγάπης ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων?

More to the point, at the time "Regions of the Romans" would have meant Rome the city.  It did not become synonymous with the whole commonwealth of the empire until after Caracalla made all his subjects citizens in the third century.

Perhaps the whole of Latium as well.

When my pointer hovered over the title of this thread in the Recent Posts box and I saw "Matthew777" in the truncated summary, I got all excited.  Long term posters will imagine my disappointment when I clicked through and saw it was just from a quote of a post of his from 2005. 

Ah well, people usually get disappointed when they find out it's me   

Not sure why Schultz was excited about Matthew777. I can't say I have particularly fond memories for his posts (perhaps something improved during my extended absence?). If it was I who'd thought he was back, I'd have actually been pleasantly surprised to see it was you.

James

[Schultz]

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

I have always wondered why προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης is always translated "which presides over love", which is awkward. Why not "which defends love", "which takes care of love"? This would be clearer and this meaning exists in Herodotus. Is Herodotus too old a reference?

φὰς αὐτὸς ἱκανὸς εἶναι τῶν ἑωυτοῦ προκατῆσθαι. saying that he was able by himself to take care of his own. (Herodotus, Histories, book 8, paragraph 36)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh8030.htm

If the verb on both occurrences meant "preside", would not it have been easier to say προκάθηται τῆς ἀγάπης ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων?

More to the point, at the time "Regions of the Romans" would have meant Rome the city.  It did not become synonymous with the whole commonwealth of the empire until after Caracalla made all his subjects citizens in the third century.

Perhaps the whole of Latium as well.

When my pointer hovered over the title of this thread in the Recent Posts box and I saw "Matthew777" in the truncated summary, I got all excited.  Long term posters will imagine my disappointment when I clicked through and saw it was just from a quote of a post of his from 2005.  

Ah well, people usually get disappointed when they find out it's me  

Not sure why Schultz was excited about Matthew777. I can't say I have particularly fond memories for his posts (perhaps something improved during my extended absence?). If it was I who'd thought he was back, I'd have actually been pleasantly surprised to see it was you.

James

The "ridiculosity" (how's that for a coined word?) of his posts made JamesR's fodder appear thoughtful and erudite. 

[jmbejdl]

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

I have always wondered why προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης is always translated "which presides over love", which is awkward. Why not "which defends love", "which takes care of love"? This would be clearer and this meaning exists in Herodotus. Is Herodotus too old a reference?

φὰς αὐτὸς ἱκανὸς εἶναι τῶν ἑωυτοῦ προκατῆσθαι. saying that he was able by himself to take care of his own. (Herodotus, Histories, book 8, paragraph 36)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh8030.htm

If the verb on both occurrences meant "preside", would not it have been easier to say προκάθηται τῆς ἀγάπης ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων?

More to the point, at the time "Regions of the Romans" would have meant Rome the city.  It did not become synonymous with the whole commonwealth of the empire until after Caracalla made all his subjects citizens in the third century.

Perhaps the whole of Latium as well.

When my pointer hovered over the title of this thread in the Recent Posts box and I saw "Matthew777" in the truncated summary, I got all excited.  Long term posters will imagine my disappointment when I clicked through and saw it was just from a quote of a post of his from 2005.  

Ah well, people usually get disappointed when they find out it's me  

Not sure why Schultz was excited about Matthew777. I can't say I have particularly fond memories for his posts (perhaps something improved during my extended absence?). If it was I who'd thought he was back, I'd have actually been pleasantly surprised to see it was you.

James

The "ridiculosity" (how's that for a coined word?) of his posts made JamesR's fodder appear thoughtful and erudite. 

Oh, I see... Yes, I could see how you might see it that way. I just tended to find him frustrating.

James

[Schultz]

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

I have always wondered why προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης is always translated "which presides over love", which is awkward. Why not "which defends love", "which takes care of love"? This would be clearer and this meaning exists in Herodotus. Is Herodotus too old a reference?

φὰς αὐτὸς ἱκανὸς εἶναι τῶν ἑωυτοῦ προκατῆσθαι. saying that he was able by himself to take care of his own. (Herodotus, Histories, book 8, paragraph 36)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh8030.htm

If the verb on both occurrences meant "preside", would not it have been easier to say προκάθηται τῆς ἀγάπης ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων?

More to the point, at the time "Regions of the Romans" would have meant Rome the city.  It did not become synonymous with the whole commonwealth of the empire until after Caracalla made all his subjects citizens in the third century.

Perhaps the whole of Latium as well.

When my pointer hovered over the title of this thread in the Recent Posts box and I saw "Matthew777" in the truncated summary, I got all excited.  Long term posters will imagine my disappointment when I clicked through and saw it was just from a quote of a post of his from 2005.  

Ah well, people usually get disappointed when they find out it's me  

Not sure why Schultz was excited about Matthew777. I can't say I have particularly fond memories for his posts (perhaps something improved during my extended absence?). If it was I who'd thought he was back, I'd have actually been pleasantly surprised to see it was you.

James

The "ridiculosity" (how's that for a coined word?) of his posts made JamesR's fodder appear thoughtful and erudite. 

Oh, I see... Yes, I could see how you might see it that way. I just tended to find him frustrating.

James

The frustration (including to myself) he caused was the reason I found him so humorous.

[choy]

Hello all,

I am currently a prospective convert to Orthodoxy. However, a friend of mine, a Roman Catholic, was very shocked when he learned about my decision, and deluged me with links to various Catholic websites that claimed to find a justification for the position of the Pope in the Roman Catholic belief in the Fathers... and I do not quite know what to make of them, since I have not yet read much of them (though I hope to change this soon). It does smell a bit like Protestant proof texting to me. But if anyone could explain the quotes from these websites, fo rinstance, from an Orthodox perspective I would be grateful: http://catholictradition.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_catholictradition_archive.html#110537139744049933 http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/gregory.htm

IC XC NIKA

If you are going to Church for any reason other than God, then you are going to the wrong Church.

[Happy Lutheran]

If you want to know about papal supremacy, I would suggest reading lots of books on the history of the early Church--from all different perspectives. Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox, Catholic, I've seen historians in all sorts of churches who bring something good to the table that others haven't.

The "official" Lutheran position and argument can be read here:

http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

I've always thought these sections were the best argument against Papal supremacy I've seen:

12] VI. The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.

and

10] IV. Gal. 2:7f St. Paul manifestly affirms that he was neither ordained nor confirmed [and endorsed] by Peter, nor does he acknowledge Peter to be one from whom confirmation should be sought. And he expressly contends concerning this point that his call does not depend upon the authority of Peter. But he ought to have acknowledged Peter as a superior if Peter was superior by divine right [if Peter, indeed, had received such supremacy from Christ]. Paul accordingly says that he had at once preached the Gospel [freely for a long time] without consulting Peter. Also: Of those who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person). And: They who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me. Since Paul, then, clearly testifies that he did not even wish to seek for the confirmation of Peter [for permission to preach] even when he had come to him, he teaches that the authority of the ministry depends upon the Word of God, and that Peter was not superior to the other apostles, and that it was not from this one individual Peter that ordination or confirmation was to be sought [that the office of the ministry proceeds from the general call of the apostles, and that it is not necessary for all to have the call or confirmation of this one person, Peter, alone].

[Cyrillic]

12] VI. The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.

I've always liked this argument too.

[Frederic]

More to the point, at the time "Regions of the Romans" would have meant Rome the city.  It did not become synonymous with the whole commonwealth of the empire until after Caracalla made all his subjects citizens in the third century.

Concerning the first occurrence of the verb προκάθηται, if Ignatius had in mind the place where the Church of Rome presides over the whole Church, why not say simply "which presides in Rome"?

Tertullian says : « Percurre ecclesias apostolicas apud quas ipsæ adhuc cathedræ apostolorum suis locis præsident...» « Go through the Apostolic churches, in which the very seats of the Apostles, at this very day, preside over their own places. » (De præscriptione, XXXVI, 1)

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: Mor Ephrem) > Topic: Papal supremacy claims