OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 01:16:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Importance of Peter's Successor  (Read 14727 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Oblio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 454

The Pointless One !


WWW
« Reply #90 on: April 16, 2003, 04:17:59 PM »

THE PAPACY

An extra " at the end of the url.  I hate it when that happens !
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #91 on: April 16, 2003, 06:56:58 PM »

Thanks, Oblio.

I looked at that essay. A little daunting. I may read it when I get the extra time.

My impression of it is that it is an anti-Roman Catholic polemic. Since my position differs from the Roman position considerably, I doubt that it applies to what I have argued here.

Nevertheless, I have not read the whole thing, so I could be wrong.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #92 on: April 17, 2003, 04:18:18 AM »

Aargh! Thanks Oblio. The thing is, I looked at my post in preview mode and the link looked fine. I don't know how that extra "quote" got tacked onto the end.

Linus, I wouldn't say that it is anti_Roman Catholic polemic. He takes the arguments given by Rome for their position and disects them and puts them in their proper context. When Guett+¬e began research on his history, he was a priest in the Roman Catholic church. He did not set out to discredit the Papal system but simply found that history did not support it.

John
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #93 on: April 17, 2003, 04:25:07 PM »

John -

I don't think history supports "the papal system" either.

But I do think it supports what I have talked about, which is nothing of the kind.

I simply said that St. Peter was made leader of the Apostles by Jesus and that the bishops of Rome were regarded as his successors. Thus the bishop of Rome was considered "first among equals" and a kind of chairman (or something loosely resembling a president) among the college of bishops.

That is something quite different from the papal monarchy (and the doctrinal innovations to support it) that evolved after the Great Schism.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #94 on: April 18, 2003, 12:52:06 AM »

I would like your thoughts on this quote. It was posted in another thread and speaks to this point (sort of):

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Pope Damasus is writing about himself and his office. It's pretty bold. Where are the denounciations? Are there any? Is this quote accurate?
Logged

NULL
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #95 on: April 18, 2003, 12:44:57 PM »

Good point, dad. I don't think there were any denunciations, just as there weren't any when St. Leo the Great claimed to speak with the voice of St. Peter in his famous Tome.

How about this?

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of Him that has willed everything which is; to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans . . ." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Address).

There's more, by the way.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #96 on: April 18, 2003, 01:03:44 PM »

Quote
I am getting some of my views from the book Primacy of Peter ed. by J. Meyendorff.  An excellent study.

Anastasios -

Perhaps you could share some material from that book?

What does the book say on these questions?

Also, can you direct me to a link where I can order a copy?
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #97 on: April 18, 2003, 01:38:30 PM »

Friends:


If you read "The Papacy" by Rene-Francois Guettee, you should also find time to consider this answer by a Catholic at:

http://www.petersnet.net/browse/3485.htm

Or, browse over the exchanges between a Protestant and a Catholic on the Papacy at:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/pv_papacy.htm

For a balanced treatment of the subject.

AmdG
Logged
James the Just
Guest
« Reply #98 on: April 18, 2003, 08:52:50 PM »

The way I interpet it is the Pope is the Patriarch of the Western Church and his primacy is there, as the Bishop of Rome amongst his fellow Bishops/Patriarchs his role should be of a chairman.If the conclave was held at a Eastern site,that Bishop/Patriarch would be the chaiman. The infalliable question is only when there is agreement amongst the Bishops/Patriarchs as a conclave, of course these are my humble opinions.

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #99 on: April 21, 2003, 01:39:15 AM »

Friends:


If you read "The Papacy" by Rene-Francois Guettee, you should also find time to consider this answer by a Catholic at:

http://www.petersnet.net/browse/3485.htm

Or, browse over the exchanges between a Protestant and a Catholic on the Papacy at:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/pv_papacy.htm

For a balanced treatment of the subject.

AmdG
Thankyou Amadeus, I will read them.

John.
Logged
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #100 on: April 21, 2003, 02:06:57 AM »

Quote
Good point, dad. I don't think there were any denunciations, just as there weren't any when St. Leo the Great claimed to speak with the voice of St. Peter in his famous Tome.

True enough...tempered by the fact, however, that St.Leo's Tome was not accepted from the get go (but only after serious examination and debate by the Council Fathers...even amongst those who approved of it, there were those who tought it sounded too "Nestorian-ish" and demanded clarification).  Thus showing, as you indicate, that Rome's "primacy" was not at all like the aggrandized version of Roman primacy from later centuries.

Quote
"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of Him that has willed everything which is; to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans . . ." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Address).

This excerpt, whether you realized it or not, demonstrates one of the problems of latter Roman teaching on Church authority - their thought had ceased to be ecclessial.

For example, St.Ignatios' praise is directed not at the Bishop of Rome (who it is doubtful had "Pope" as an official title at that point, though perhap's it's beginings... much like Bishops/Priests were called "Abba" or something similar), but at the Church of Rome.  The prestige of Rome's Bishop, is a reflection of his Church's prestige/heritage.

This is in fact quite similar to St.Irenaeus' comments on Rome; they are a meditation not on the "papacy", but upon the universality/representative nature of the Church of Rome.  Rome was the center of the known world at that time, the Imperial city, and a city consecrated with the blood of numerous martyrs (including Ss.Peter and Paul!).  Indeed, just as martyrs came from throughout the world to Rome to meet their end, there is a real sense in which the faith of the world resided in Rome as well.

A similar situation is to be found in St.Clement's letter to the Corinthians.  What few readers of this text keep in mind, is that St.Clement is writing in the name of the Roman Church, and not on his own.  Indeed, it is not at all clear he was in fact the Bishop of Rome at the time when he penned the letter, rather than simply a presbyter.  There are a few internal factors vindicating this view...

1) It speaks of the martyrdom of Ss.Peter and Paul as being something recent (which occured in aprox. 64 A.D. - not matching the period when St.Clement was in fact Rome's Bishop)

2) It speaks of the Jerusalem Temple and it's sacrifices as still being active - something not possible of the text was authored any later than 70 A.D. (when Jerusalem, and the Temple, were leveled by the Roman army due to the uprising of the Jewish zealots.)

3) The problems in Corinth (described in the letter) sound like they are in keeping with the antics they were pulling at the time St.Paul wrote his epistles to them.  While not strong proof, it would seem more likely that the authoring of 1st Clement would be closer to the time of St.Paul's epistle, rather than several decades later.

While the exact status of St.Clement is significant, more significant is that he writes as one speaking for the Roman Church.

All of this however (Rome as a Church being what was important, not so much the pastor of the Roman Church) is overlooked by people reading these texts in the typical, anachronistic fashion (reading later Roman aggrandizing into the texts.)

It is certainly true that by the end of the fourth century, the Bishops of Rome were beginning to emphasize their own importance more and more (primary evidence being the letter of Pope Damasus).  However, it's very hard to not notice the change that had occured in so doing this - by this point the emphasis is very much on the Pope as an individual (and not so much on the prestige of the Roman Church), and very intererstingly, an almost complete emphasis upon the "petrine" heritage of the Roman Church (with little mention at all of St.Paul, who most likely had as much to do with the Roman Church's formation as St.Peter did.)

Personally, the best explanation I have for this is that as the Church spent longer and longer as a "legit", "legal" entity, it began to theorize and give more consideration to the notion of the Church as a universal whole - it is in this climate that St.Cyprian's universal ecclessiology begins to be formed as well.  It is also true, that when you have a large body together, somebody has to be "the first" and step up to exercise some leadership.  I think it's in this climate that Rome developed a theory of it's own authority amongst other Bishops, based upon an older, widely held respect for the Roman Church and Her heritage.

While this older respect was certainly held throughout the Christian world, it's quite obvious that Rome's opinion of herself (particularly as this appraisal grew with time) was not universally held onto, at least not with the same kind of tenacity.  One need only compare the attitude of those Fathers who were within Rome's patriarchal juristiction with those who were not - a much different tone and level of emphasis.

In short, Rome's latter views of herself were more or less provincial in nature - they certainly were not oecumenical, but were a widely held to (in the west at least; though not without exception) model for Church polity.

I think where these views took a sharp turn for the worst, was when the political ambitions of the Franks got out of hand, the death blow being when Franks started actually sitting in the "Chair of St.Peter".  It is at this point that the modern papacy as we now know it begins (since actual Roman Popes, like St.Gregory the Great, had a big problem with ideas like "universal juristiction", as his letter to St.John the Faster made clear).

Seraphim
Logged

Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,423


« Reply #101 on: April 21, 2003, 02:41:49 AM »

So, Seraphim (and others), what do you think of the Fr. John Romanides articles on Franks, Romans and Feudalism.  Sounds almost conspiracy theory-like to me, but there probably is still a lot of truth in it.
Logged
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #102 on: April 21, 2003, 03:03:52 AM »

Some thoughts on Fr.Ryland's article at http://www.petersnet.net/browse/3485.htm

Due to my own laziness, it would be very difficult for me to give the detailed treatment of this article (as it arguably deserves.)

Thus, in place of a detailed treatment, I'll simply make some general observations.

- Taking for granted that Fr.Ryland's assessment of what St.Peter's standing is amongst the Apostles, he does nothing to demonstrate how this transfers to the Bishops of Rome (and them alone).  That may sound facetious to Roman Catholics, but it is something that I've yet to see addressed in a satisfactory manner by RC apologists.  I am not saying one cannot draw a link between St.Peter's ministry and that of Orthodox Roman Popes (who considered themselves neither infallible or to have "universal juristiction") - the Popes themselves certainly started doing this at the close of the fourth century (the earliest testimony to this being the letter of Pope Damasus from 382.)  However, that is something very different than what Fr.Ryland is attempting to prove.

- There is no doubt that St.Peter was the leader of the Apostles.  However, Fr.Ryland's attempt to portray St.Peter as a medieval Pope is very weak.  Irregardless of the semantical games he plays with the book of Acts (regarding the Council of Jerusalem), I fail to see how an unbiased person would see anything resembling the latter day Papacy in St.Peter's Apostolic ministry.  He didn't sit as a judge or chairman at the Council of Jerusalem, and his significance is always decidedly charismatic/prophetic in nature.  This does not take him out of the role Christ entrusted to him - indeed, it is precisely what the Saviour intended.  St.Peter's faith (a gift quite in spite of his own weaknesses), confirms the brethren, and he is a mouthpiece of God's will.  The only what that can in any way be reconciled with Fr.Ryland's papalism, is if he were to claim that the Popes were unfailingly all prophets, and that the office of Pope is that of an oracle (which RC apologists will always deny, since it is not what the RCC teaches.)

- By denying that the "rock" is St.Peter's confession, Fr.Ryland (and RC apologists in general) make St.Peter's name change (from Simon to Peter by our Lord) absolutely meaningless.  If the rock of the Church is not faith in Christ, why on earth would St.Peter be of any significance at all?  His dynamic personality?  Grooming?  Simon's name change goes hand in hand with his confession, a confession made possible by God's grace.  It would be as if Abram became "Abraham" (the father of multitudes) for some arbitrary reason, apart from his in fact being the the father of many.  There is something unseemly and incredibly arbitrary in the attempts by RC apologists to divorce "rock" from "faith" in St.Matthew 16.

- Theological/historical problem; it says in the Gospel that because of the "rock" the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.  Well, if the Church is only present where the true faith is professed, we can safely say the Church ceases to exist where faith in Christ has disappeared, correct?  Given the history of the Church, this is the pattern. On the other hand,  I've yet to see any evidence that the Church's existance hinges upon the existance of the Papacy - since the Papacy has been quite incapable of preventing anyone, including entire Churches, from falling away.  Of course, here we see the beginnings of an ecclessiological difference - where as the Orthodox and the Bible clearly envision the Church as primarily being a local reality (as outlined by St.Ignatios of Antioch), the Roman Catholics view the Church only as a giant whole, with Bishops and their flocks being simple divisions of that whole.  Indeed, this is the only interpretation of "Church" possible in a papally minded world view.

As I said earlier, the article really should be dissected - these are only some general thoughts.

Seraphim
Logged

Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #103 on: April 21, 2003, 09:21:55 PM »

Quote
Quote:
"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of Him that has willed everything which is; to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans . . ." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Address).
 

This excerpt, whether you realized it or not, demonstrates one of the problems of latter Roman teaching on Church authority - their thought had ceased to be ecclessial.

For example, St.Ignatios' praise is directed not at the Bishop of Rome (who it is doubtful had "Pope" as an official title at that point, though perhap's it's beginings... much like Bishops/Priests were called "Abba" or something similar), but at the Church of Rome.  The prestige of Rome's Bishop, is a reflection of his Church's prestige/heritage.

I agree with you to a point, but it's somewhat difficult to imagine, given what St. Ignatius says elsewhere about the importance of bishops, that he would have made much of a distinction between praise for a church and praise for her bishop.

What was the source of the prestige/heritage of the Church at Rome?

Was it not that she was founded by Sts. Peter and Paul, and that her bishops were regarded as St. Peter's successors?

Or was it merely her location in the Roman capital?

I think the latter is doubtful, since Christians did not seem to care much for worldly capitals and even referred to Rome by the code name "Babylon" (see 1 Peter 5:13).

What did St. Ignatius mean when he used the word "presidency?"

And why was the Bishop of Rome regarded as the "first among equals," even after Constantinople had eclipsed Rome as the seat of imperial power?
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #104 on: April 23, 2003, 01:24:23 AM »

Seraphim,

Quote
It is certainly true that by the end of the fourth century, the Bishops of Rome were beginning to emphasize their own importance more and more (primary evidence being the letter of Pope Damasus).  However, it's very hard to not notice the change that had occured in so doing this - by this point the emphasis is very much on the Pope as an individual (and not so much on the prestige of the Roman Church), and very intererstingly, an almost complete emphasis upon the "petrine" heritage of the Roman Church (with little mention at all of St.Paul, who most likely had as much to do with the Roman Church's formation as St.Peter did.)

Why were there no denounciations? If the Patriarch of the Church at Constantinople were to claim for HIMSELF what Damasas did, would there be no outcry from the other Bishops? I did a (very) little research and found that the quote was part of a Decree sent to (presumably) the entire Catholic Church. The part I quoted is right after the list of inspired books, so I'm sure it was well read, considering the Canon was being debated and was set around this time.

There are many quotes from a debate on Papal primacy:

http://www.geocities.com/joeswaydyn2000/

The OC doesn't make a very good case IMO. The pro-papacy quotes aren't dealt with strongly enough, and there are MANY of them.

It seems there should be many rebuttals to these quotes if Papal primacy was not held by the Eastern Churches.

God Bless and have a blessed Easter season.

Mark
Logged

NULL
Catholicious
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 26



WWW
« Reply #105 on: April 24, 2003, 01:49:46 PM »

Quote
I am getting some of my views from the book Primacy of Peter ed. by J. Meyendorff.  An excellent study.

Anastasios -

Perhaps you could share some material from that book?

What does the book say on these questions?

Also, can you direct me to a link where I can order a copy?

Linus7,

Hey, some other good books on this same issue I hear are:

Jesus, Peter and the Keys by Scott Butler (373 pgs)
Upon This Rock by Stephen K. Ray (297 pgs)

You can get them cheapest as alldirect.com before shipping but I usually get them from buy.com because I have done business with them in the past and recently have been cheaper because of the free shipping.  Peace
Logged

Matthew 5:11 (KJV)
5  Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

John Henry Cardinal Newman
"To go deep into history, is to cease to be Protestant
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #106 on: April 24, 2003, 02:01:42 PM »

What I found very interesting was the treatment of this subject in the 2nd Volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's work on the Catholic Tradition (The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700)). He comes about as close as I think you can come to affirming the Catholic position without actually becoming Catholic...

And then he converts to Orthodoxy!

Huh Strange.

Justin

PS. I think the above mentioned book is a good balancer if you're gonna read Whelton's Two Paths..., but other than that... well... let's just say that I'm always baffled when I hear Orthodox Christians praise Mr. Pelikan so highly.

PSS. The best info on the subject, IMO, is the Church Councils (not just ecumenical ones, and definately not just eastern ones), and the Church Fathers--particularly the fourth and fifth century Church Fathers.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2003, 02:03:21 PM by Paradosis » Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,732


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #107 on: April 24, 2003, 02:02:19 PM »

Quote
Jesus, Peter and the Keys by Scott Butler (373 pgs)
Upon This Rock by Stephen K. Ray (297 pgs)

I haven't read them but I know they're not well thought of by the Eastern Orthodox and their sympathizers here. Anastasios or somebody similarly well-read can explain.
Logged

Catholicious
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 26



WWW
« Reply #108 on: April 24, 2003, 02:12:27 PM »

Well I guess it would not surprise me because the papacy is the one main thing that divides the Catholics and Orthodox and these aforementioned books are written by Catholics I believe, I know Stephen Ray is a Catholic, a convert from the Baptist church.
Logged

Matthew 5:11 (KJV)
5  Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

John Henry Cardinal Newman
"To go deep into history, is to cease to be Protestant
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #109 on: April 24, 2003, 02:18:26 PM »

The problem with those books is that they are largely exercises in proof-texting.  The issue with that is the Orthodox can also play at proof-texting (eg, the infamous book by Abbe Guetee entitled "The Papacy").  At the end of the day you have a war of quotes with no satisfying resolution.

To me, what it came down to when I was examining this issue several years ago was the actual way that the church worked during that period of the councils, what led to tha tbreaking down, and what happened in the West thereafter -- that was more convincing to me than the proof-texting on either the Catholic or the Orthodox side.

Brendan
Logged

B
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #110 on: April 24, 2003, 07:53:48 PM »

The problem with those books is that they are largely exercises in proof-texting.  The issue with that is the Orthodox can also play at proof-texting (eg, the infamous book by Abbe Guetee entitled "The Papacy").  At the end of the day you have a war of quotes with no satisfying resolution.

To me, what it came down to when I was examining this issue several years ago was the actual way that the church worked during that period of the councils, what led to tha tbreaking down, and what happened in the West thereafter -- that was more convincing to me than the proof-texting on either the Catholic or the Orthodox side.

Brendan

I think you hit the nail right on the head.

I have read Whelton's book, and I want to read the Meyendorff book and the books recommended by Catholicious.

I believe St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles, but he obviously was not regarded as either impeccable or infallible. I also believe the bishops of Rome were his successors and held a kind of loose presidency or chairmanship in the early Church. Owing to the circumstances of the time (slow rates of travel and communication being two) even this loose leadership role was not routinely exercised, nor was it always needed.

Yet appeals were addressed to the early Popes, and they seem to have regarded themselves as St. Peter's successors. I have not found any early Christian writers who dispute this or denounce the bishops of Rome for saying it.

Something went wrong later, however. Worldly politics and material considerations intruded on ecclesiology, and the later bishops of Rome began to make claims and changes that were unjustified, arrogating powers to themselves that their predecessors never had or even claimed to have. The office of chairman ("first among equals") was transmogrified to that of king.

And that is an office held only by Christ.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
bettyg51
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


I'm a llama!


« Reply #111 on: May 13, 2003, 10:42:11 AM »

Hi! I'm new to this web site and on the RCC side. A few of you participate with me in the Christianity.com forums.

I don't know if what I have to say has already been said, but I want to add some comments about what I've seen here.

Here is something interesting about the controversy in Galatians 2:11-14
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340) in his church history writes in Book I, Chapter XII. The Disciples of Our Saviour.

"1 The names of the apostles of our Saviour are known to every one from the Gospels. But there exists no catalogue of the seventy disciples. Barnabas, indeed, is said to have been one of them, of whom the Acts of the apostles makes mention in various places, and especially Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians.

2 They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. This is the account of Clement in the fifthbook of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, "When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face."

Consider this also:
In THE EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by Clement of Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm) The Church of Corinth had been led by a few violent spirits into a sedition against its rulers. No appeal seems to have been made to Rome, but a letter was sent in the name of the Church of Rome by St. Clement to restore peace and unity. He begins by explaining that his delay in writing has been caused by the sudden calamities which, one after another, had just been falling upon the Roman Church.

Clement was the fourth pope. He settled a dispute while the apostle John was still alive and much closer to the Church of Corinth. I think this shows that the bishop of Rome had primacy.

Here are some good links on Orthodox and Catholic Churches differences:
http://praiseofglory.com/andtheson.htm/   A page dedicated to the "dialog of love" between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches  
http://praiseofglory.com/gilladdition.htm THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE  8 October 1438.


God bless,
Betty G.

Logged

NULL
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #112 on: May 13, 2003, 10:48:48 AM »

Hey, betty!

Glad to see you here!

WELCOME!

You have always been a stalwart defender of the Apostolic Tradition over at Calvin'sGeneva.com (CBBS).

May God bless you, and may you post here often!
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #113 on: May 14, 2003, 02:42:20 AM »

Christos Anesti!  Christ is Risen!

I think this shows that the bishop of Rome had primacy.

Welcome Betty, its good to see you here.

I don't think anyone here is in disagreement regarding the "primacy" of the bishop of Rome (while in communion with the church). What we cannot accept is any claim to "supremacy" which is one of the primary issues leading up to the schism.

John
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #114 on: May 14, 2003, 09:40:58 AM »

I don't dispute that the Church of Rome helped solve cases for other communities in the early Church.... provided the later papal beliefs concerning supremacy aren't read into this Smiley
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #115 on: May 15, 2003, 03:27:15 AM »

I think Orthodox Christians have nothing to lose in dealing with this subject honestly.

In all honesty, it is quite clear that the early Roman Church understood itself to be first amongst other Churches.  Everyone agreed with this.  The early Romans also believed this primacy was not due to concilliar decrees, but preceeded them, and was based upon the Apostolic dignity of the Church of Rome (and to a lesser degree, this explains the dignity once held by Antioch and Alexandria).  In general, everyone agreed with this as well (it's clearly a part of later Byzantine polemics to try and deny this, as is also the brief toying with the idea that St.Peter was not in fact constituted as the leader of the Apostles.)

Where my opinion differs from modern Roman Catholics, is as follows.

i) I do not read the late medieval and 19th century extravagances of the Vatican into the experience of the pre-schism Church (Rome never pretended to be "infallible" back then, and no one believed this of Rome either.)

ii) Irregardless of Apostolic heritage and the place Rome had in God's designs, it has fallen into error and separated itself from the Church.  This is what Symeon the Theologian affirmed - he did not white wash Rome's special apostolic heritage, or a real primacy for Rome... simply that it no longer possessed this primacy, since it had defected from the true faith and from the Church.  As far as St.Symeon was concerned, if the Pope still professed the true faith, he would regard him not only as successor of St.Peter, but honour him as Christ Himself.

In case others here have not noticed, while the Church still marches on, things have been more or less in turmoil since the defection/perversion of the Papacy and the incursions of Islam.  Perhaps the last great flourish of the Church prior to the rise of the anti-Christ, will involve a resolution to both of these problems.   Obviously, these are things known only to God.

Seraphim
Logged

Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #116 on: May 15, 2003, 12:40:17 PM »

Seraphim -

Good post. I think you summed things up rather well.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
James the Just
Guest
« Reply #117 on: May 15, 2003, 02:29:56 PM »

I re discovered a verse of scripture that I used when thinking or conversing about the Pope or people of stature : ACTS 10:25-26 " When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshipped him. [26] But Peter lifted him up, saying, " Stand up; I too am a man ". I don't no why but this idea / verse has been with me for years, just forgot its location.

James
Logged
Tags: That Irenaeus quote 
Pages: « 1 2 3  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 0.103 seconds with 55 queries.