www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Universal Jurisdiction

Zoe:
You can certainly use what I wrote. In addition, however, you should include quotes from other Fathers, East and West, who understood Peter to have universal jurisdiction, like Chrysostom, which should be easy to find (I have a sense that I did not need to even proffer this last bit of advice to you )

Ignoratio:
You provide a lot of good food for thought. Please allow the following replies:

This is a loaded statement. First, the fact that Peter's declaration was not above challenge does not affect my point at all. The ones who challenged him were HETERODOX - those who believed one had to be circumcised to be saved. To give weight to this challenge is to submit that the Arians in the first ecumenical Council, or the Sabellians in the second ecumenical Council had a valid voting status in those Councils to determine the orthodoxy of the Church. What we have in Acts 11 is analogous to what occurred in those Councils - an orthodox authority who establishes correct teaching in the face of heterodox teaching. In Acts 11, the only orthodox authority at that time was Peter.

Second, I do not agree with your conclusion at all that it was "through consensual agreement" that Peter's declaration was "authoritatively determined." There was no consensual agreement demonstrated here, at least in the sense that there was some sort of debate which had to be resolved. Verse 18 makes this obvious. There was no debate to be had. After Peter related what God had done through him, lo and behold, "When they heard this, they were silenced." There is no record here (and it would be improper to add such a record) of a back and forth discussion that would culminate in a resolution that all parties agreed upon. No. Peter spoke. They were silenced (the same thing that occurred, by the way, at the COuncil of Jerusalem - after Peter spoke, the debate stopped). Their subsequent praise also revealed that NO ONE EXCEPT PETER HELD THE ORTHODOX VIEW ("Then to the Gentiles ALSO God has granted repentance"). I humbly submit that if Peter went to a different crowd of Christians, without any of the other Apostles there, the result would have been the same. Peter would not have needed any consensual agreement from the other Apostles for his authority to have been accepted on this issue. I think everyone would have by this time understood Peter's unique universal jurisdiction and authority, especially as it occurred after the incident involving Ananias and Sapphira.

Perhaps it is my Protestant background, but I cannot accept this model simply because this is not the model that the Bible gives to us. This is evident (to me anyway) not only because of (1) the example of Acts 11, but also and MOST importantly because (2) JESUS HIMSELF proclaimed that it was not the Apostles who would confirm Peter; it was just the opposite - it would be Peter who would confirm the Apostles. If the Orthodox cannot accept the Biblical model, may I suggest that it would be downright horrendous for them to expect the Catholic Church to join them in that rebellion against the Word of God (truly, truly, truly forgive me for using such strong language, but it seems that is the only for it to be viewed).

I guess my statement seems ambiguous. I did not mean to imply at all that transubstantiation was an original cause of the breach in communion. I meant that it cannot NOW be used as a means to justifiy continued separation.

If this is the grounds for objection, in my admittedly myopic view, it is no justifiable grounds at all because, as noted, it is not the BIBLICAL model.

Agreed. I would like to propose an additional consideration. The efforts at unity must not only be realized by a papal attitude of humility and service, but an accompanying and complementary agreement by the Orthodox that the Pope indeed has the power (as Chrysostom and a host of other Fathers believed regarding Peter) to do singularly what all the bishops of the world could do collectively. If there is disagreement, in the spirit of humility and service already proposed, the Pope must seek our unity not by coercion or by appealing to his unique authority, but by peaceful, brotherly dialogue with his brother bishops as equals.

I have read in many places that this particular issue can be mitigated by asserting that the addition of the Filioque was ONLY intended for the Western Patriarchate, not to be imposed upon the Eastern Patriarchate. In fact, this is already a reality as far as the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome are concerned, which is indeed food for thought!


Agreed. I believe for the most part, this is already the reality in the Catholic Church. I appeal to the most recent dogmatic declarations of the Catholic Church - papal infallibility and univeral jurisdiction; Immaculate Conception; Assumption of Mary. All these were pronounced in a collegial manner. Many naysayers have complained that the Marian dogmas were examples of the Pope flexing his muscles, but if these characthers even bothered to investigate the circumstances surrounding these domatic proclamations, they would discover that, contrary to their sensationalist rantings, all the bishops (in the Catholic Church) were consulted before the dogmas were proclaimed, the Pope obviously concerned that there would be as much agreement as possible before making his infallible declarations. In fact, the promulgation of the Assumption was instigated by first seeking the collective opinions of the LAY CHURCH!

HOwever, there is one area in which I believe the Pope has a special and unique authority and duty to proclaim unilaterally if he so chooses - the area of moral doctrine. Infallibility has been invested in many papal encylicals regarding moral doctrine, and this is wholly justified not only from a practical perspective as a bulwark against the modernist laissez-faire tendenices with regard to morals that infects not only the world, but also the Churches of God, but also because I believe that it is in such an area that God wants his Church to have a truly solid foundation. DOctrine is a much more intellectual endeavor than morality. It is much easier comparatively to convince a person of a doctrine which primarily appeals to the mind, than to convince a person of a moral position which primarily appeals to the heart. In whatever area it is that humanity is more likely to be a reed in the wind, it is that area that God would want his Church to have a more authoritative stance.

Once again, though it may be my own ognorance speaking, but I believe this is already the reality in the Catholic Church. Every infallible papal proclamation in history has been declared only after due acqueisence to Sacred Tradition, which itself is agreed to be infallible.

I agree so far, especially with this final line BECAUSE it accurately reflects the BIBLICAL model.

I do not understand this. It is tantamount to saying that a general council can simply declare itself ecumenical without the benefit of participation by any other congregation of bishops.

I agree in principle EXCEPT, as noted, in cases of moral doctrine.

I do not think the Orthodox would reject the first statement since all it says is that any singular bishop is subservient to the ENTIRE Church.

It seems that the second statement would be more amenable than the traditionally polemical view of the papacy as "lording it over." In my view, a "guide" carries with it connotations of tenderness, love, and service. Can you at all imagine in your own experience (perhaps) acquiring a guide who did not have anything BUT your own welfare constantly on his mind? A guide must practice constant solicitude for the one being guided.

In Christ always

Zoe:
You can certainly use what I wrote. In addition, however, you should include quotes from other Fathers, East and West, who understood Peter to have universal jurisdiction, like Chrysostom, which should be easy to find (I have a sense that I did not need to even proffer this last bit of advice to you )

Ignoratio:
You provide a lot of good food for thought. Please allow the following replies:

This is a loaded statement. First, the fact that Peter's declaration was not above challenge does not affect my point at all. The ones who challenged him were HETERODOX - those who believed one had to be circumcised to be saved. To give weight to this challenge is to submit that the Arians in the first ecumenical Council, or the Sabellians in the second ecumenical Council had a valid voting status in those Councils to determine the orthodoxy of the Church. What we have in Acts 11 is analogous to what occurred in those Councils - an orthodox authority who establishes correct teaching in the face of heterodox teaching. In Acts 11, the only orthodox authority at that time was Peter.

Second, I do not agree with your conclusion at all that it was "through consensual agreement" that Peter's declaration was "authoritatively determined." There was no consensual agreement demonstrated here, at least in the sense that there was some sort of debate which had to be resolved. Verse 18 makes this obvious. There was no debate to be had. After Peter related what God had done through him, lo and behold, "When they heard this, they were silenced." There is no record here (and it would be improper to add such a record) of a back and forth discussion that would culminate in a resolution that all parties agreed upon. No. Peter spoke. They were silenced (the same thing that occurred, by the way, at the COuncil of Jerusalem - after Peter spoke, the debate stopped). Their subsequent praise also revealed that NO ONE EXCEPT PETER HELD THE ORTHODOX VIEW ("Then to the Gentiles ALSO God has granted repentance"). I humbly submit that if Peter went to a different crowd of Christians, without any of the other Apostles there, the result would have been the same. Peter would not have needed any consensual agreement from the other Apostles for his authority to have been accepted on this issue. I think everyone would have by this time understood Peter's unique universal jurisdiction and authority, especially as it occurred after the incident involving Ananias and Sapphira.

Perhaps it is my Protestant background, but I cannot accept this model simply because this is not the model that the Bible gives to us. This is evident (to me anyway) not only because of (1) the example of Acts 11, but also and MOST importantly because (2) JESUS HIMSELF proclaimed that it was not the Apostles who would confirm Peter; it was just the opposite - it would be Peter who would confirm the Apostles. If the Orthodox cannot accept the Biblical model, may I suggest that it would be downright horrendous for them to expect the Catholic Church to join them in that rebellion against the Word of God (truly, truly, truly forgive me for using such strong language, but it seems that is the only for it to be viewed).

I guess my statement seems ambiguous. I did not mean to imply at all that transubstantiation was an original cause of the breach in communion. I meant that it cannot NOW be used as a means to justifiy continued separation.

If this is the grounds for objection, in my admittedly myopic view, it is no justifiable grounds at all because, as noted, it is not the BIBLICAL model.

Agreed. I would like to propose an additional consideration. The efforts at unity must not only be realized by a papal attitude of humility and service, but an accompanying and complementary agreement by the Orthodox that the Pope indeed has the power (as Chrysostom and a host of other Fathers believed regarding Peter) to do singularly what all the bishops of the world could do collectively. If there is disagreement, in the spirit of humility and service already proposed, the Pope must seek our unity not by coercion or by appealing to his unique authority, but by peaceful, brotherly dialogue with his brother bishops as equals.

I have read in many places that this particular issue can be mitigated by asserting that the addition of the Filioque was ONLY intended for the Western Patriarchate, not to be imposed upon the Eastern Patriarchate. In fact, this is already a reality as far as the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome are concerned, which is indeed food for thought!


Agreed. I believe for the most part, this is already the reality in the Catholic Church. I appeal to the most recent dogmatic declarations of the Catholic Church - papal infallibility and univeral jurisdiction; Immaculate Conception; Assumption of Mary. All these were pronounced in a collegial manner. Many naysayers have complained that the Marian dogmas were examples of the Pope flexing his muscles, but if these characthers even bothered to investigate the circumstances surrounding these domatic proclamations, they would discover that, contrary to their sensationalist rantings, all the bishops (in the Catholic Church) were consulted before the dogmas were proclaimed, the Pope obviously concerned that there would be as much agreement as possible before making his infallible declarations. In fact, the promulgation of the Assumption was instigated by first seeking the collective opinions of the LAY CHURCH!

HOwever, there is one area in which I believe the Pope has a special and unique authority and duty to proclaim unilaterally if he so chooses - the area of moral doctrine. Infallibility has been invested in many papal encylicals regarding moral doctrine, and this is wholly justified not only from a practical perspective as a bulwark against the modernist laissez-faire tendenices with regard to morals that infects not only the world, but also the Churches of God, but also because I believe that it is in such an area that God wants his Church to have a truly solid foundation. DOctrine is a much more intellectual endeavor than morality. It is much easier comparatively to convince a person of a doctrine which primarily appeals to the mind, than to convince a person of a moral position which primarily appeals to the heart. In whatever area it is that humanity is more likely to be a reed in the wind, it is that area that God would want his Church to have a more authoritative stance.

Once again, though it may be my own ognorance speaking, but I believe this is already the reality in the Catholic Church. Every infallible papal proclamation in history has been declared only after due acqueisence to Sacred Tradition, which itself is agreed to be infallible.

I agree so far, especially with this final line BECAUSE it accurately reflects the BIBLICAL model.

I do not understand this. It is tantamount to saying that a general council can simply declare itself ecumenical without the benefit of participation by any other congregation of bishops.

I agree in principle EXCEPT, as noted, in cases of moral doctrine.

I do not think the Orthodox would reject the first statement since all it says is that any singular bishop is subservient to the ENTIRE Church.

It seems that the second statement would be more amenable than the traditionally polemical view of the papacy as "lording it over." In my view, a "guide" carries with it connotations of tenderness, love, and service. Can you at all imagine in your own experience (perhaps) acquiring a guide who did not have anything BUT your own welfare constantly on his mind? A guide must practice constant solicitude for the one being guided.

In Christ always

I am sorry. There is so much to disagree with in your argument and I have so little time that I am not going to be able to address it at this time.

Francisg,

I love your post(s), but stop with the clones!!

Logos Teen

Everytime I attempted to post my response, I received a message stating that I had to try again in 90 seconds. As you can see, that happened several times! I guess DESPITE the message, the post actually went through.

I hope no one thinks I was simply trying to inundate the thread with MY ideas! Hahaha!

God bless

Dear francisg:

Or, the triple post was just for emphasis?

Frankly, your latest post cannot be clearer than the Catholic position on these subjects for so long!

AmdG

Dear francisg,
Rather than engage in a lengthy dispute over every minutiae, I want to move quickly and touch upon only those themes which I see critical to the discussion

First, my only point in introducing Acts 11 into your Acts 10 equation was to demonstrate that collegiality was an integral part of the broader incident under consideration. With this broader theme, I seem to have gained your agreement, since you did find Acts 11 analogous to later ecumenical councils.

Second, you are correct; I misplaced the point at which the issue was authoritatively determined. I should have noted that this was done the moment God acted. Afterwards, we find the twin sources of inseperable authority, Peter and the Apostolic college assenting to this divine act in their turn, thus leading the Church to acceptance of the divine act. As for your postulate regarding the dispensible nature of the apostolic college, I would simply refrain from commentary, considering the paucity of evidence for such, and the ubiquity of apostolic cooperation and coordination found in Scripture.

And perhaps we are not as unbiblical as you suppose, for I find your statement regarding papal attitude and complementary agreement by Orthodoxy to be consonant with my theorizing so far, including your statement about the popes actions in situations of disagreement. There may be some misunderstanding going on here that I am unaware of to cause you to think my proposal unbiblical.

On the filioque, would you also agree that the alteration makes this a western creed and not the universal creed of Nicene-Constantinopolitan?

On papal proclamations of moral doctrine, I do not see the same necessity that you do to separate it out from the general principle we both agree on. Orthodoxy has, to a large degree found ways of enforcing moral doctrine without papal authority. Not that I would not appreciate the papacy�s involvement on such questions, simply that I see even this matter one that is best done in consultation and cooperation.

As for an ecumenical council being first general and then recognized as ecumenical, I believe we must have some sort of misunderstanding, for it is the same principle that I laid out again in my enumeration of process (#�s 5 & 6)

I suppose the problem with the ultimate control is if it is understood to be the pope alone and not the pope in general council. If the former, there are fears of the papacy �lording over� the episcopate. If it is the former, I think these fears can be allayed. As for �under the guidance of the pope� the connotations is generally tender, but it also feeds into the concern that the papacy wants to portray its relations as patriarchal instead of fraternal, and I think that on this point it is a matter of essential ecclesiology and historical realities that we need to see the relation as the latter and not necessarily the former. Many of the eastern sees are of apostolic origin in their own right and should be understood in such light, even as Irenaeus speaks Rome while also mentioning that there are any number of other bishoprics of apostolic foundation that could also receive a petition inquiring into some question of the faith.

Ignoratio,

First off, let me clarify where I am coming from.

First, my general attitude is �Bible first.� I do accept the fact that this is a �tradition� that I have acquired and internalized from my Protestant days, but I believe it is very much in keeping with patristic Tradition itself.

Second, I distinguish between apostolic/biblical Tradition and ecclesiastical Tradition. Note that I have capitalized both types of Tradition, indicating that both are valid and necessary rules of faith for the Church. But I believe they can be distinguished in THIS instance.

Third, the example of the Bible is the primary rule. The examples we find in the Bible are the divinely instituted examples for Church order, and this divine order must be applied to EVERY age of the Church. Thus, I find the Catholic position more �biblical� than the Orthodox position, because the example of a figure with a special authoritative prerogative among the Apostles is the Church order that we find in the Bible.

Fourth, the concessions demanded by Orthodoxy are accounted for under the exhortations by St. Paul that everything we do should not be a stumbling block to our brethren. If our teaching causes a fellow Christian to stumble, then we must not force it upon them. BUT, St. Paul also exhorts us not to let what we know as good to be thought of as evil. Thus, we must find a way to apply the divinely instituted order mentioned in the third principle above, while keeping the peace of the Church at the same time.

In light of these four principles, I think it is biblical that the Pope handles any type of disagreement in the manner we have already discussed � not as �lording it over,� but in a manner that promotes the greatest peace and unity. HOWEVER, this is biblical only insofar as it promotes the biblical exhortations to peace and unity, and St. Paul�s specific exhortation regarding stumbling blocks to our fellow Christians. The ACTUAL divine order as laid out in Scripture is that there is a head of the entire community of Christians which has a special charism from God to lead the Church into that unity, and therefore, a special authority to do so.

Now, if the Orthodox say that the divine order is collegiality, then I must say that the Orthodox position is unbiblical, because the divine order according to the biblical example represented by Peter is otherwise. HOWEVER, if the Orthodox are willing to admit that the example of Peter�s pre-eminence is the divine order (instead of collegiality), then Catholics can also validly concede the demands of the Orthodox that decisions should be made collegially in order to promote the peace that is essential to the Church, and this latter position is biblical too. Here is where my original distinction between apostolic/biblical Tradition, on the one hand, and ecclesiastical Tradition, on the other, becomes relevant. The Catholic position is the apostolic/biblical Tradition because it is the standard by virtue of the necessity of God�s command (I also have the example of Moses and Korah in mind; the example of the High Priest; the example of the monarchial theocracies of Israel); the Orthodox position is the ecclesiastical Tradition because it exists by virtue of the necessity of peace and good order.

Now, with specific regard to two of your statements:

I never said that the apostolic college was �dispensible.� I believe the apostolic COLLEGE is INDISPENSABLE for the peace and good order of the Church. However, I do NOT believe the apostolic college is necessary for God to reveal His judgments or His truth to us (I use the word �reveal� by its secular definition, and it should not connote any equality between a papal or collegial episcopal judgment in the post-apostolic age to an inspired revelation given to the Apostles). I do not find God working in this way in the Bible, neither in the Old Testament, nor the New. I am not saying this sarcastically, but if you can find one instance where God revealed His truth or judgments collegially, I will concede your point. From my meager studies of Scripture, I have not found such an instance. However, I do find many instances where collegial action is necessary for the peace and good order of the community. As mentioned, the example of the Bible comes first, and it is THIS which must primarily rule our vision of the Church.

Once again, I must bring the distinction between biblical and ecclesiastical Tradition to bear on this issue. I believe the Filioque is a DIVINE truth, and is thus universal, a valid exposition of the Truth already contained in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. But since it is only EXPLANATORY, for the sake of peace and good order, I do not believe it should be imposed on the Eastern Churches since the Creed without the Filioque is sufficient on questions of salvation. Thus, in my view, according to biblical Tradition, it is universal. According to ecclesiastical Tradition, it is only Western.

God bless.

Here is a more concise presentation of my view:

According to God�s order, the Pope CAN issue a dogmatic ruling by himself; according to Church order and peace, the Pope MUST issue such rulings collegially.

In Christ always.

Dear Administrator,

Can you help me out once again here?

Is it just me or has the Byzantine Forum somehow become the "Latin Forum" where the Western theology of the monarchial Papacy is being asserted over and above any Eastern perspectives - which appear to be rejected before anyone even has a chance to present them as a contradiction of scripture and tradition?

Is it just me, do you think, who feels this?

Not knowing the religious internet all that well, has the number of traditional RC forums where such topics from such perspectives should more properly be addressed been on the wane of late?

Alex

Alex,

I don�t know if you intended it that way, but your post is very pleasantly humorous. I did not know that I had managed to �assert� my view over the Eastern perspective(s), but if you feel the case has been won for the Western perspective, well � who am I to deny you that?!

Don�t you feel a good discussion should allow different perspectives to be heard? Different points of view tends to promote more discussion and an increase of knowledge.

Perhaps you feel insulted that I said the Orthodox position is unbiblical? Well, I think it is safe to say both of us do not adhere to sola scriptura, so my statement could not possibly be taken by you to mean that the Orthodox position is heretical. Just because it is not found in the Bible � well, as a fellow believer in the value of Sacred Tradition, you know where I am going with this statement.

Hoping to read more exhilarating points of view from you in the future. God bless.

In Christ always

Dear Alex,

Over the course of several months, I have thought similar things, so not to worry: it's not just you.

The notion that the Orthodox (Eastern) view of these things is a part of "Ecclesiastical Tradition", while the Roman Catholic view is the "Apostolic/Biblical Tradition", I think, is pushing it. Yes, a distinction can be made between the two, I suppose, but if you do, then Scripture will always trump anything else because it is the inspired Word of God. The Orthodox see Scripture as extremely important, but Orthodoxy, to my knowledge, doesn't have the dichotomy the West has between Scripture and Tradition. The Scripture is extremely important, and is an integral part of the Tradition, but is not something separate from it. Indeed, how could it be?

Furthermore, I believe that collegiality is at least as clearly evident in the New Testament as the papacy (which I personally believe is a stretch from the notion of primacy, but am willing to entertain as part of this discussion). When a RC once told me to read a certain lecture by Scott Hahn and then I would clearly come to realise that the Orthodox were wrong, I jotted down a bunch of notes where I saw inconsistencies in his arguments. The only response I got to that effort was that I was only a student, and he was a scholar, so I must've gotten something wrong. Yeah, or the argument as Hahn presented it was full of holes and didn't account for the collegiality seen in the NT. A good portion of the "holes" I observed had to deal with places where Catholics tended to take one thing and run with it in a direction it wasn't necessary to run in, a direction where an Orthodox interpretation would've worked just fine. Also, there is at least one instance that I know of in the book of the Acts where it seems Peter is told to go on a mission by the "College".

I don't have time to get into all of this as I'd like to because of school. I don't mind the discussions that are going on now either. I just feel bad that one view is expressed as default (God's way) while the other always tends to be expressed as not as important (something like applying Robert's Rules of Order to a given situation, which does not need to happen if everyone will shut up and listen to the boss), when the East can make a legitimate case that it is the West that went around changing things. It seems to me that there are people who view the Orthodox and see them as outside the Catholic Church, and "outside the Catholic Church" consciously or not sounds like "Protestant" to them. I think this attitude is sad because the Orthodox clearly aren't Protestant, and I think offer more substantial and powerful arguments for their position, and these cannot be dismissed lightly, as some of the posts here seem to want to do.

Merely my opinion.

Dr. Roman,

If you don't think that Francis's arguments are compelling, then try to refute them instead of pulling the old "this isn't a western forum".

If you do think Francis's arguments are compelling, and you are annoyed by that, well then what can I say?

LatinTrad

Dear Alex,

I am not the esteemed administrator, but you are quite right, this is the "Byzantine Forum". It is not our place or duty to justify the tradition and theology of the Eastern Church to Western and Latin Christians.

The justification for the legitimacy of the theology of the Christian East, and for our patrimony as a Church has already been adequately proclaimed to the West, at the 2nd Vatican Council, and in the teaching letters of John Paul II, Pope of Rome.

Our tradition is different, our language is different, our theology is different, our liturgy and prayer is different, drawing on a living and vibrant tradition. This tradition need not be tested against Latin models, it stands on its own right, and has its own integrity. It is founded in God, and it is his will for our Church.

As moderator of the "East-West" section, where discussions are properly held, I respectfully encourage Latin Catholics, and other Western Christians, who are visitors to this forum, to remember that this is a gathering place for Eastern Christians primarily. Western Christians who wish to learn about us, and enter into dialogue with us, are most welcome. The study of theology is our task, and we welcome all sincere seekers.

However, we do not feel a need to justify the existence of our Church, our theology, our liturgy. This has already been adequately done by our Holy Father Pope John Paul, and I fear that those who do not accept his word for it, will not be convinced by our sincere efforts either.

Elias

I would love to discuss the biblical justification for collegiality with regards to the actions of God by which he dispenses His Truth or directives, if anyone wants to do so.

I do not believe I was disparaging the Orthodox position by stating that the Catholic position is God�s order. I admitted that the collegial example is ALSO biblical, so there is no room for saying I was disparaging it; the distinction is that the Bible ALWAYS exemplifies that when God wants to establish His Truths and directives, he INITIALLY does it through ONE person. Don�t ask me why, but that is the BIBLICAL example (I surmise that God wants the heavenly order to be reflected on earth, but that is only my opinion). From there, it is necessary for the good order of the Church to dispense it to the rest of mankind collegially.

The example of Acts 8:14 is sorely lacking in refuting what I just proposed. Not only was the collegial act in that example NOT about the promulgation of dogma, but it is inconclusive with regards to whether or not the example demonstrates collegiality over the prerogative of Peter. Yes, it was the whole college that sent Peter and John out, but one cannot definitely conclude from that episode that Peter was subservient to the college. One can easily interpret it to mean that Peter himself wanted to go, and that the blessing of the college was with him when he went. And when you look at the circumstances that occurred at Samaria, once again, we see Peter�s pre-eminent role in the situation. So we have an example here that is INconclusive, compared to a statement by St. Peter which completely and UNEQUIVOCALLY reflects the Catholic position. Look at Peter�s statement in Acts 15 � �It is by MY mouth the Gentiles should receive the Gospel.� This was AFTER the incident in Acts 10-11 (don�t mean to state the obvious! ), and despite Ignoratio�s assumptions of collegiality, Peter STILL explained the circumstance that it was through HIM that God wished for this Truth to be known. THAT example is unequivocal (as is the example of Moses and Korah, the example of the institution of the High Priest, and the example of the MONARCHIAL theocracies of the OT).

Mor Ephrem, you expressed the view that the Catholic position is a �stretch.� May I remind you that it is not the Catholic Church that in her official, authoritative statements is throwing the word �heretic� around. It is the Catholic Church that consistently proposes that papal jurisdiction and collegiality can work. According to biblical principles, in fact, they are complementary. And it is the Catholic Church that is constantly holding out her hand in brotherhood. It is rather the Orthodox who often (not always) do not see any possibility of rapprochement, or do not even see a hint of Petrine primacy in the Bible. Who is doing the �stretching� here, especially in a forum which seeks to promote unity? I also recall Orthoman citing Dollinger as saying that there is ABSOLUTELY no notion of papal primacy in the Fathers. Now, isn�t THAT a stretch?

I apologize if you viewed my post as being overly critical of the Orthodox. If you read it again, perhaps you will change your mind. Though I made a distinction between apostolic/biblical and ecclesiastical, I certainly did say that the basis for each is biblical (the first, as reflective of God�s establishment, the second as reflective of the peace and order demanded by God), and I also certainly did say that both papal primacy AND collegiality is biblical.

In Christ always for the sake of peace, God bless.