|
1 members (San Nicolas),
374
guests, and
133
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,524
Posts417,640
Members6,178
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 221
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 221 |
Dearest All: In another thread, Father Thomas Soroka of St. Nicholas Orthodox Church posted the following: Among Orthodox theologians, there is no denial of the idea of "primacy" in the Church. There is no official "conspiracy" to "cover up" the fact that in the early church, eventually (but certainly not from the very beginning) Rome was the first among equals, and that the Roman bishop was first in responsibility for maintaining the unity of the Church, and that his responsibilities extended somewhat beyond chairing the meetings. However, what is clearly disputed are two things: First, that the interpretation of the "Rock" of Peter is not Peter himself, or Rome, or his office, but his confession of faith. We find this in the earliest writings, from Origen on down. Even the blessed Augustine himself clearly teaches this, on his sermon on Peter and Paul. What this means is that any claims by "Rome" as somehow holding a primacy only because it was the successor to Peter (using a faulty interpretation) is fallacious, or at least, deficient. Antioch and Jerusalem can easily make the same claims. Rome had a primacy because of the succession of Peter (and Paul) and because it was the seat of the emperor. These two reasons together give Rome primacy in the early church. Second, in a thoughful analysis by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, based on earlier work by Nichloas Afanassieff, he clearly demonstrates that the ecclesiology in the West had changed, had shifted, so that the idea of a "Universal Jurisdiction" of the bishop of Rome in the sense of "universal power" was the clear "development" of a theology which was no longer based on a "eucharistic ecclesiology," that is, the fullness of the Church is manifested in the community gathered around its bishop celebrating the eucharist, but it was now that the church itself was defined as being the "sum of its parts," each local community was only a part of the whole church, and because the church was now seen as all of the communities together, this "universal church" needed a "universal bishop" at its head. Once again, in Orthodoxy, this is seen as a distortion and (in his words) a poisonous development. So, if it is a mere acknowledgement of Roman primacy in the undividided church, or even the role of the bishop of Rome that is disputed here among the writers stated in previous posts, I think Orthodox theologians have largely shown that it existed, and they define it as more than just a "chairmanship" or a "primacy of honor alone." No one in the early church disputed Rome's primacy. However, simply pointing to patristic texts to "prove" Roman primacy is not the full story, because the Orthodox claim is that something changed, and it is precisely the "change" that caused the division, for, in the view of Orthodoxy, Rome was no longer confessing the faith of Peter, which Christ referred to as "the rock" upon which He would build His Church. Priest Thomas Soroka St. Nicholas Orthodox Church McKees Rocks, PA http://www.stnicholas-oca.orgNeedless to say, I disagree strongly with this assessment. But I believe that it is extremely well put, very thoughtful, and that it raises several important points requiring in-depth response. So, even though I'm sure this topic has come up on this board before, I would like to re-raise it here. I invite comments from both Orthodox and Catholic posters. And I promise (God being my helper) to take a stab at responding to Father Thomas's points either tonight or over the weekend. In the meantime, I must get back to work. Blessings, all! ZT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
However, what is clearly disputed are two things: First, that the interpretation of the "Rock" of Peter is not Peter himself, or Rome, or his office, but his confession of faith. YOU are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church. Respectfully, I don't see how anyone could interpret this otherwise. We find this in the earliest writings, from Origen on down. Even the blessed Augustine himself clearly teaches this, on his sermon on Peter and Paul. We also find the argument for Peter being the rock from the earliest writings, Origen on down. Even the blessed Augustine clearly teachis this. But I guess neither of these statements should account for anything, since Fr. later states that, "simply pointing to patristic texts to "prove" Roman primacy is not the full story..." Second, in a thoughful analysis by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, based on earlier work by Nichloas Afanassieff, he clearly demonstrates that the ecclesiology in the West had changed, had shifted, so that the idea of a "Universal Jurisdiction" of the bishop of Rome in the sense of "universal power" was the clear "development" of a theology which was no longer based on a "eucharistic ecclesiology," that is, the fullness of the Church is manifested in the community gathered around its bishop celebrating the eucharist, but it was now that the church itself was defined as being the "sum of its parts," each local community was only a part of the whole church, and because the church was now seen as all of the communities together, this "universal church" needed a "universal bishop" at its head. Once again, in Orthodoxy, this is seen as a distortion and (in his words) a poisonous development. Why is this a "poisonous development"? How does it endanger the Faith? because the Orthodox claim is that something changed, Of course, in the Catholic view, nothing changed, it simply developed. As Fr. Thomas states himself just a day or two ago in another thread, he doesn't look the same as he did when he was 15 years old, yet he is the same person and his essence has not changed. Here's a good link devoted to much of this: http://www.internetpadre.com/new/subcategory.asp?CategoryID=49 I tried to post what is above as respectfully as possible, keeping in mind that this concerns and involves a priest. I sincerely hope no one is offended. ChristTeen287
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear ChristTeen, Fr. Thomas Soroka is one tough cookie. He can take everything you have to throw at him, and then some . . . I have a Soroka or two in my family, and you can't put anything past them!  Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103 |
Why can't we all just face the fact that the East and West developed their understanding of Primacy in the Church differently. Neither side has ever or will ever succeed in forcing their idea of primacy down the other's throat. Only when they are willing to sit down respectfully with one another and work to find a form of Primacy which both sides find acceptable, will this issue ever be settled.
I respect those in this forum who write to this end. But others seem "puffed up with conceit, knowing nothing; having a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth..."
I learned much from the former group, little from the latter.
Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Der-Ghazarian Wolfe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Fr. Thomas Soroka is one tough cookie. He can take everything you have to throw at him, and then some . . . True, Alex. A trait I greatly respect! Ghazar, I most perfectly agree with: Only when they are willing to sit down respectfully with one another and work to find a form of Primacy which both sides find acceptable, will this issue ever be settled. ChristTeen287
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441 |
Originally posted by ChristTeen287:
[QB][QUOTE] YOU are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church. Respectfully, I don't see how anyone could interpret this otherwise. ChristTeen287, I clarified this statement (actually a bit of an overstatement) in the earlier thread at https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000784;p=10 . I'm quoting it here for your convenience. I hope it at least clarifies what I was trying to say. ...the nuance is very important here! Why is Peter called in our liturgical texts, "the foundation of our faith," even "the father of us all"? It is he alone who is the "Rock," the "foundation," the "father," the "first," (etc) because he is the first "believer" to openly proclaim faith in Christ. He is the first to proclaim that Jesus is the Christ. He is the first in a long lineage of Christian believers. Therefore, his faith is the bedrock, the foundation, the rock, of the Church. But, it is his faith, which is the Rock on which the Church is built, not Peter the person, Peter the one who proclaimed faith in Christ. People have faith, so you cannot separate it from him. You have to understand the emphasis here. To all: It seems that when I post "the Orthodox position" on this board (in whatever subject), things seem to go all aflutter. Threads get shut down, passions are enflamed, feelings get hurt, and the beliefs of the Orthodox faith become a personal affront to some. My good friend Alex ("OrthodoxCatholic") even said that I am a "tough cookie"! I had to laugh at that one because only my three daughters think that about me. Everyone else knows I'm a big furry pussycat! So I guess my point here is to say that we need to understand that the Orthodox position, Orthodox theology, the Orthodox understanding, is not meant to be a personal affront to anyone who may think otherwise. When Orthodoxy says that in it is the fullness of Christ, it's not meant to be a personal affront to anyone's faith who might believe something else. However, you should also not be "shocked" or "alarmed" to know that this is the Orthodox self-understanding. This has always been the Orthodox position. There is no secret here. So, please don't feel that you have to walk on eggshells around me. Yes, I am a priest, and whatever respect you wish to accord the priesthood, of that I am personally undeserving. I will always treat everyone with the utmost respect, and I think that I have done this so far. (If I have not, please let me know so I can correct it.) I respect your position and know it well. As I've posted before, part of my family is Byzantine Catholic. I have a big place in my heart for all of you since many of us share a common heritage. And we all worship the one Lord and Savior. As a guest, I know my place. But I also appreciate the fact that I am allowed by the managment of this board to present the Orthodox position regarding points on which we may disagree, in a calm and objective manner. I do not do it to be argumentative - those who may think that do not know me, but hopefully now do know me a bit better. And you will note that I usually post when I believe the Orthodox position is being misrepresented in some way or when an otherwise interesting discussion is happening. So, regarding this particular thread, the best that I can tell you is that I would be happy to post some articles that you may find of interest on the topic of the Petrine office from the Orthodox perpective. Of course, they are articles by Orthodox Christian theologians of some renown. It will take me a few days to scan and prepare them. Personally, I don't have the energy or intellectual stamina to go into a protracted argument on a subject which has been stewing for probably about 1500 years. In Christ, Priest Thomas Soroka St. Nicholas Orthodox Church McKees Rocks, PA http://www.stnicholas-oca.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 221
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 221 |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ghazar: [QB]Why can't we all just face the fact that the East and West developed their understanding of Primacy in the Church differently. {/quote] Is this a "fact" which we must all "face"? Au contraire, ISTM that this is precisely the question under discussion. It is the thesis to be explored, the issue to be resolved, not the "fact" to be "faced." I believe that East and West did (to some extent) develop their ideas of pirmacy differently -- but not nearly as differently as some seem to assume. In fact, in both East and West, there are Fathers and prelates aplenty who testify (both in word and in deed) to a developing understanding of papal jurisdictional primacy. Yes, the witness is more consistent across the board in the West, but it is not lacking in the East. That would be my thesis. But I wouldn't dream of presenting this thesis as unassailable "fact" before first examining the evidence. That would be a classic case of "the cart before the horse."  Why not examine the evidence? You portray such an examination as fruitless controversy. Certainly it can be. But it doesn't necessarily have tp be. ISTM that ascertaining the facts is a perfectly legitimate endeavor...indeed a crucial one for ecumenical discourse. Perhaps it's because I'm married to an historian. I see the historian's craft as crucially important. After all, Christianity by definition is an historical religion. It revolves around events that happened in human history -- the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection. Therefore, Christians have always been vitally concerned with ascertaining exactly what happened in Church history. After all, exactly what happened has implications for our beliefs and allegiances. It has implications for our lives. Therefore, I think it is far from futile -- rather, it is of the very essence of the Christian enterprise -- to ascertain how papal primacy actually developed in both East and West. And to that end, we must shuck our preconceptions and prejudices and examine the available evidence as honestly and objectively as we can. When St. Paul dismissed useless controversies, he wasn't talking about honest historical inquiry focused on ascertaining the true facts. He could hardly have been dismissing historical inquiry -- since historical inquiry is part and parcel of the Christian enterprise! So, I hope we don't simply shut down this discussion, which I think can be carried on amicably. We aren't trained historians; we won't be able to resolve anything definitively. We are fools rushing in where angels fear to tread (and where scholars frequently reach an impasse). Still, the development of papal primacy is a vitally important issue with HUGE ecuenical implications, so I don't see why it should be off limits for discussion. Who knows? Maybe we'll all learn something. Blessings, ZT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Good post, Zoe!
Fr. Thomas,
Also good post. And you have done a great job of defending your position while at the same time remaining aware of others' feelings. Much appreciated.
ChristTeen287
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103 |
you said:
Is this a "fact" which we must all "face"?
reply:
If one wants to be honest and face the truth, yes. All you need to do is look at how the ancient Churches approach the problem of primacy and it is very obvious that each has developed its approach differently. What you want to do is declare one tradition authentic (the Latin, ofcourse) and the other false. I can't accept this and I don't think the Catholic Church wants us to take such a position.
you said:
I believe that East and West did (to some extent) develop their ideas of pirmacy differently -- but not nearly as differently as some seem to assume.
reply: The problem is you want to interpret the Eastern tradition for the Easterners. I see this as futile as Easterners trying to interpret the Western tradition for the Westerners (which does take place).
you said:
Why not examine the evidence? You portray such an examination as fruitless controversy. Certainly it can be. But it doesn't necessarily have tp be. ISTM that ascertaining the facts is a perfectly legitimate endeavor...indeed a crucial one for ecumenical discourse.
Therefore, I think it is far from futile -- rather, it is of the very essence of the Christian enterprise -- to ascertain how papal primacy actually developed in both East and West. And to that end, we must shuck our preconceptions and prejudices and examine the available evidence as honestly and objectively as we can.
reply:
First of all, I have been examining it for the last 12 years, thank you. You create the straw man and then do a good job of beating him down. If you were to read my post again, you might see that I never said I objected to scientific, historic or theological inquiry and dialogue. Actually I said I'm for this. What I object to is those who like to raise controversy for a chance to try and slam others with their perceived "superior" arguments in order to eventually be able to slap their lable across the other's forehead. There are those on this forum who seem to have an insatiable desire for controversy and argument. This is a big turn off for those of us who come to this forum to learn, discuss, exchange ideas and grow with mutual upbuilding. May God deliver us all from becoming controversy-mongers.
There are two attitudes here. One attitude comes with humbleness and seeks first to learn what the other Apostolic Churches believe. Then when differences are discovered, they can be explored with mutual respect, not needing impassioned controversy and agruments.
The other attitude is the one you expressed here and in many other threads. It seeks to dictate to others what they should believe. It seeks to take their tradition, interpret it for them and then try to compel them with arguments to believe it. This isn't how it works. And I don't think this is what the Pope or Church of East or West are calling for. The Pope, himself has stated that the East is an authentic interpreter of their own Tradition. From your posts, I get the impression that you do not agree with him.
In Christ's Light,
Wm. Der-Ghazarian Wolfe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 221
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 221 |
Dear Ghazar: I hope and trust that I do not seek to "dictate" to others. If I have come across that way, mea culpa. Please forgive me. But as for a non-Easterner studying Eastern Church history...why on earth not? My non-eastern husband (of Swiss-German extraction) earned his doctorate in history, specializing in Byzantium, at Harvard in 1983. His first advisor, the late Robert Wolff, was an eminent Byzantinist, also non-eastern. After Professor Wolff's death, Steve (my husband) studied under Angeliki Laiou, a Byzantinist from Greece. He completed his dissertation under Angeliki's direction. I don't remember Angeliki ever saying to Steve, "You can't possibly understand this stuff because you're not eastern!" If that's in essence what you're saying, well, it seems a tad parochial to me. That's like saying you can't study ancient Egypt unless you're Egyptian...or ancient Rome unless you're Roman. Non-easterners have a lot of catching up to do, a huge learning curve when it comes to Eastern Christian History. And maybe they can never understand it the way an "insider" can. But they can read the patristic sources just like anyone else. And they can draw reasonable inferences therefrom. Blessings, The Baffled ZT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 197
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 197 |
To ZT:
I would be more than happy to pray for you, and I truly do need your prayers! I'm afraid these silly message boards have a tendency to bring out the worst in all of us. I did not join to fight, but because I wanted to connect with other Eastern Christians.
What can we do other than peacefully disagree? Christian unity has always been something very near and dear to my heart. The sad reality is, that the Christian world we live in is divided, and what can we do other than pray and love? I guess when it comes right down to it, the fanciest theological arguments we can make are meaningless, but if people can see genuine love in us, then maybe we can make a difference. Being a theologian doesn't make us like Christ, but having love does!
I don't know if I'm making any sense, I'm just trying to speak from my heart.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
All these traditions and how each developed primacy floating around this thread- - -I think, to get to the bottom of this, it has to be examined in a methodical manner. We must: 1) Determine what the Catholic Church (starting as a whole, then moving down through the different traditions) dogmatically and infallibly teaches concerning the Papal Primacy and Jurisdiction. 2) Ditto for what the Orthodox Churches' stances are. Obviously this will change from Church to Church. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there. 3) Determine whether the majority of patristic evidence agrees more closely with #1 or with #2, factoring in development of doctrine (which I think will and should play a crucial role in this discussion). If we continue with trite remarks and personal attacks, we will never get anywhere. Plus it just makes us look stupid. ChristTeen287
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 221
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 221 |
Originally posted by Ghazar:
What you want to do is declare one tradition authentic (the Latin, of course) and the other false. I do not want to do this at all. Please give me the benefit of the doubt. I have never said or implied any such thing. What I want to do is ascertain what the patristic record (both East and West) actually says -- vis-a-vis what we think it says before we actually examine it. I think that's called seeking the truth (small-t historical truth). Thanks and God bless! ZT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Friend in Christ, Jeff! I take some exception to your use of "silly message boards!" Yes, there are those who use them to sow discord and unhappiness, but there are by far many more who use byzcath.org to witness to Christ, to share information and to delve more deeply into His Mysteries and His Church. Religion is always a difficult topic to write about. It is difficult for me because I sometimes can't figure out why there are those who don't see the Truth exactly as I do. What in Heaven's name is wrong with them?  There is a real temptation in all of us to want to sometimes say to others, quoting Gerald Manley Hopkins: "You better get ovah - to me and Jehovah!" But byzcath.org has been a blessing in my life, and I would love to meet the Administrator and as many of the Moderators and Posters here as possible in the future, and at least before I go to my reward (or otherwise). There's nothing "silly" about that, Big Guy! Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716 |
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
But byzcath.org has been a blessing in my life, and I would love to meet the Administrator and as many of the Moderators and Posters here as possible in the future, and at least before I go to my reward (or otherwise).
There's nothing "silly" about that, Big Guy!
Alex I think it would be wonderful to share a conversation with Dr Roman, either over Pierogis at St Elias after Liturgy or over Filet Mignon in Downtown Toronto! We could bring along good Father Elias, Axios, the Admin, Father Thomas, Zoe, Christ Teen and we might bring about unity right there in the Great White North itself!! Stranger things have happened! Here's to that unity!!! Peace, Brian
|
|
|
|
|
