www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Peter the Rock

I believe that Father (Stephanos) is referring to the paragraph in Father Gregory's post about Pope St. Gregory the Great and his words about the title adapted by the Patriarch of Constantinople, as 'Ecumenical'.

Furthermore, it is in the singular alone that Jesus gives the Keys to Peter. Nowhere in the NT are the other Apostles given the Keys. It is true that they are given the power to bind and to loose, that is not to be disputed.
And it is simply not true that there is no Church Father that recognizes the Primacy of Peter "over" the entire Church.
Beloved Father of the East, Saint John Chrysostom recoginzes this.
He says, "Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set OVER the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church."
in illud hoc Scitote n 4 p282
Our Blessed Father among the Saints John Chrysostom continues....
Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father...this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the Disciples, the first called, the first to obey: Peter the coryphaues of the choir of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the Faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world... and on an on he goes about the Blessed Apostle Peter.
Then he adds "who was entrusted with the Keys of Heaven, who received the spiritual revelation, Peter the coryphaues of the choir, the mouth of all the Apostles, the Head of that company, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the fervent lover of Christ."

How clearer must we get?
Stephanos I

Yes Alice you are correct and very astute.
Thanks.
Of course I was not implying this of his Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople.
I was just pointing out the faulty reasoning.
He holds the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" today and realy shouldnt in my opinion, it belongs only to the one on the Protothronos of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Stephanos I

I did not notice the word infallible anywhere in that text.

Dear Michael U.

If the Orthodox (my church) considers the decisions of an ecumenical council of Patriarchs to be binding, then why wouldn't the Roman Catholic church which had only one Patriarch after the sorrowful schism of 1054, (albeit, the historical 'first among equals') also not consider the decisions of that one Patriarch on matters of faith and morals as being binding...(or 'infallible')?

God has created us to have some leadership and with that leadership, direction.

For the West, that direction evolved differently than it did in the East.

I guess it is all how you want to look at things.

In Christ our Lord and Saviour,
Alice

Dear Father (StephanosI),

Bless!

For better or worse, titles of Patriarchs and Churches are what they are, and we cannot change them...

As for the original taking of the title 'Ecumenical' by the Patriarch of Constantinople, poor Pope St. Gregory the Great, a bit perterbed by the Patriarch's haughtiness in adapting that title, responded with "as for myself, I will just call myself Pope" (papa:father).

Just a bit of trivia to hopefully lighten things up...(or I don't know, it could have the opposite effect )

In Christ, our Lord and Saviour,
Alice

Perhaps I live in wonderland. Perhaps I'm overly optimistic. All I know is how the revelation of this text has affected me.

I've never been more convinced that God was the one who led me to the BC Church and not to Orthodoxy. While I love Orthodoxy I'm more convinced than ever that it is God's intention to reunite the two Churches. Am I drunk on wine? No. I haven't had any. I believe I'm drunk on the Spirit of God.

Praise be to God. The long winter of the Church may yet be on its way out!

Dan Lauffer

Dear Father Stephanos,

Please accept my apology for not addressing you appropriately in my post, I did not know you to be a priest, I plead invincible ignorance!

I think the text written by Matthew Steenberg would help with the subject matter from an Orthodox perspective.

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

In this 'hierarchy of the hierarchs', the bishop of Rome, the descendent of St Peter, is as noted above ranked first of all. However, because this organization of bishops also professes that none is doctrinally flawless or inerrant, it is possible for one or another - or even whole successions of bishops - to fall into error or heresy. This is precisely the situation that the Church would and does proclaim with regard to the see of St Peter. While it rightly would hold first place among the sees of the Church, the departure from the Orthodox Faith by its patrimony means that this position shifts to the next in the hierarchy - namely, Constantinople."

In Christ,

Matthew

For another take on Pope St Gregory and the "Universal Bishop" controversy, see:

http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/gregory.htm

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ152.HTM

The Encyclopedia Brittanica says of this controversy (a source not always friendly to the papacy):

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Let us now take a survey of that Faith held in common for the First Millennium of Christianity.
1. Peter in the NT
a. Peter as the Head of the Apostolic College.
b. Peter is the (coryphaues) spokesman of the Apostles.
- Peter is the first named witness in the list of those who have seen Jesus. (1 Cor 5:15)
- Peter served as a source for the tradition which Paul received.(Gal 1:18)
- Peter was the Leader in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18) before he left for Antioch and then Rome.

2. The Role of Peter is handed on through Apostolic Successin
a. Ignatius of Antioch acknowledges that the Church of Rome is Pre emenient in love and presides in love prokathmene tes agathes ...and...hetis prokathehetai en topo choriou.
B. Very early we see that Rome is involved in the affairs of other Churches.
Clement I intervening in the affairs of the Church at Corinth who expelled its presbyters and set in new ones.
C. By the 3rd Century both Stephen and Victor assume that the Roman Tradition is normative for other, quite distant Churches.

3. It was Recognized that the Church of Rome was the last court of appeal against whom no recourse was allowed.

Are we in agreement so far?
And if not why not?
Stephanos I

Father,

Could you flesh out the Stephen and Victor reference please?

Dan L

Dan

Pope St Victor I (189-198) the first Latin Pope, was also the first Pope who claimed the right to make decisions that would be binding upon the entire Church. Victor excluded the churches of Asia Minor from Communion over there refusal to celebrate Easter on the same day that Rome did. He also excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium for teaching that Jesus was an ordinary man prior to the Holy Spirit's descent upon him, and he also deposed a well known Gnostic from the priesthood.

Pope St Stephen I (254-257) is probably best remembered for being at the center of a controversy regarding the re-baptism of heretics. Stephen upheld the doctrine that the baptisms were valid if the proper formula was used. (but did add that absolution was necessary in those cases) Spain, Gaul, Alexandria and Palestine sided with the Pope. Asia Minor opposed his ruling, and were declared out of communion.

An impressive study. The history is there for anyone who really wants the truth of matters. One has to value reality over being 'right' to have it sink in.

Unfortunately we humans want to be �right� and will defend our opinions to the death. I often think that this has something to do with the misunderstanding of the biblical term �righteousness� which rather means something like - wisdom and has not the meaning we use today for being �right� or �wrong� according to one own ability to figure things out.

Please allow me to yak mindlessly for a few moments. I am not on this board that much. May I get to my point in a convoluted way.

It has amazed me at how some expect the Pope to be super-human while all Jesus every expected of Peter was to be just - a human and cease pretending to be superhuman. The definition of humility for me means to accept the limitations of being human.

The only posts I have read in here are yours so I do not know what position others may have taken.

I read an interesting little bit from someone I usually disagree with. In it he pointed out that Ecumenicalism in the West really began to flower from the concentration camps of WWII - where priests, rabbis, pastors and ministers helped each other in the dangerous works of providing services. There was a bond uncovered - the bond of being human and believing in God and trying to live by conscience. And in the East during the same years and Communism which followed, religious survival was through isolation and in some cases unholy compromise with Communist authorities. Communism as well as Nazi could take you to the limits of what a human could endure.

Interesting. The survival in the West was through trust and closer unity and in the East through distrust and self-isolation. I do not think either was really �wrong� it just depended on the culture. Who knows!? However in the East it was the �body� that tried to survive (the church physical) and in the West it was the spirit that had to find a way to survive because the body was already in concentration camps.

I do not really know what came before - but I have always been impressed by Popes since WWII in as much as it seemed to me that they were well conscious of being the �elder brother� of all Christianity. Dealing in a fatherly way with Protestants and Lutherans and other Christian churches.

No matter what the intellectual arguments are - it is undeniable that in recent history at least - the Pope has been and continues to be the most influential figure of religion on the world stage. And while there are many Christian churches which have policy to shun him (and some who claim he is the Anti-Christ himself) each Pope of my memory has continually, with patience and humility, continued not only his care of the Catholic world but all Christianity. A Papa who continues to do the work assigned to him by the boss.

I am old enough to remember the failed coups in Hungary under the Communists. I can still see the black and white news broadcasts of the Hungarian people fighting Soviet tanks with bare hands - and I can still hear the radio broadcast please �Some one - PLEASE come help us�� that no one in the West responded to. And to top that off I can still see the news broadcast of the new Polish Pope coming off the plane to be greeted bu the last Communist leader of Poland - General WhatsHisName. The Communists has banned a �Pope� from coming to Poland but the Pope had responded that he would resign and become an ordinary priest if that is what he had to do to come back to Poland. And I remember that stately scene of Army Generals and armed troops and the Pope approached and I remember seeing the Generals knees shaking in uncontrollable fear. Here was the leader of a Communist country who has Soviet troops and armaments to back him up - and his knees where knocking together as one lone priest approached. I think it was at that moment in my life that I realized - who and what the Pope of Rome was.

All intellectual arguments pale and vanish when one comes face to face with reality - for anyone who is looking for reality.

This current Pope has spent himself in mind and body - to Sheppard the entire Christian church, not only his own but separated brethren. Certainly there is no doubt in my own mind that he will never be accused in heaven of digging a hole for the coin he had been given to spend for his Master. He has spent all he has been given and more.

Your history of the role of the Papacy - serves to bring to my own mind how little I have done in comparison with such a long line of Popes - most of them who did their duty as good stewards of the entire Church in all it parts. Not that anyone else is called to do similar to the Pope - but we are all called to live up to a certain level given - and most of us (myself included) do not while these men who have been called to so much more than the rest of us - and called to do it in an environment where many of his children out right hate him and spread rumor and conspiracy theory as if that - were the way to heaven� (!).

Your little history - has only made me thank God all the more for His sense to appoint Peter and his successors. Humans they have been - and like all other humans there have been moments of personal error and personal sin.

I know the weight that I might feel for just the simply responsibility of being a husband and father to a family - I can not imagine the heaviness of such a cross as to be appointed successor to Peter and to know that even if the whole world deny you and stop their ears - you must continue to do the assignment given to you by Christ himself.

BTW - I have an open mind to your view that regarding a connection with the Rock of Caesarea in the area. You might have something there I missed. I wish I had time to investigate the connection - to take advantage of your good mind.

On another subject - I do see a role for an Ecumenical Patriarch. I would compare it to the role that James played. While Peter was the final word in judicial matters - James played a Providential role in uniting all in as much as he was though of very highly by most. James represented the Jewish prophet par excellence with his disheveled hair and clothing. He must have been - a sight! Yet it is plain that while he was the most humanly popular and trusted apostle - James himself gave such honor and respect for the position of Peter that James acted as a unifying force and example of following Peter because Peter - was - the that apostle appointed out of all others. If Peter would have been the popular one then later it could be said that Peter was not appointed leader but was simple the most popular and acclaimed leader on that basis. Instead - it is clear that James was the most influential according to personality and in that acted as a mediator and unifier of others to fall in behind Peter in that same way James himself did. It was as if God knew that through out time the Pope would not always be the most popular man - someone else might be - but the most popular man has the same role that James had - that is - pointing to Peter as the one appointed by Christ himself. In that sense, the official of James was given a certain unofficial ecumenical role amount brothers by Providence.

At the same time I do agree with your comment that a title of Ecumenical Patriarch would belong to Peter when thought of in an official ecclesiastical sense.

These are my thoughts such as they are.

-ray

Dear Ray,

I read your long post, and would like to commend you on it. You make some very valid and interesting points, and you make them charitably.

I know it will sound wierd, and perhaps 'anathema' to some of my Orthodox brethren, but I see nothing disagreable in your post.

I pray that the Church will one day function in its totality, with ALL the Patriarchs TOGETHER.

I do agree, the role of Pope, (especially since he is 'first among equals', but also because he is alone from the full functioning of the rest of the 'family', as it were ) is an AWESOME task, but one that this Pope is doing quite well.

Indeed, whether those who are not in communion want to acknowledge it or not, the Pope of Rome is the spiritual leader and voice of morality, justice and Christianity for the WHOLE Christian world. May God grant him many years. Eis pola eti despota...and may the seeds of his efforts for the unification of the 'family', Christ's Body, take much fruit in the years to come.

Your Sister in Christ,
Alice

Hi Dan and Friends,

I'd like to weigh in on this very respectful and thoughtful dialogue. If I'm not mistaken, your questions can be broken down to the following:

1. Peter being exclusively the Rock and what this means to the ancient Churches
2. The Bishop of Rome being the exclusive successor to the Rock and what this means in ecclesiology between East and West
3. Why there isn't unity between Orthodox and Catholics

1. First of all, I think there are Christians on all sides that would agree that Soorp Bedros (Arm. = St. Peter), as well as his confession, is the Rock on which Christ built his Church. Yet we know that Christ is the "Conerstone" rejected by the builders (Old Israel) and also "a Living Stone... chosen by God and precious." And as Soorp Bedros -the "Rock" himself- said: we ourselves "also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (cf. Psalm 117 LXX, St. Mt. 16:16-19, 1 St. Pt. 2:4-5). So with our Lord and St. Peter, all Christians share in that spiritual rock-edifice called the "Church." Therefore it is no error to affirm St. Peter is a "Rock" along with his confession.

2. As for the See of Rome being in a special way the see of St. Peter, this is certainly affirmed in Armenian Church tradition and I think the case is very much supported in all the ancient Church traditions. So there is no real argument here about Rome being in a special way the See of Peter. Just it is probably going too far to say Rome is exclusively the See of Peter.

3. So if many (if not most) would agree on the above, why no unity? This might be to assume the above settles every obsticle in the way of unity. I think everyone here recognizes it is not that simple (which is probably why many are offering other perspecitves on what else is needed for unity). Yet just because unity is not obtained in this immediate hour, does not mean that all are "schismatic" in heart who think work still needs to be done before it is time for reunion. In stead of this pessimisstic view why not be a little more optimistic and rejoice in what has been accomplished? We can still have a heart for unity even if we think (with our Church leaders) that that hour has not yet arrived. The Churches are working on it. We need to not be too impatient. Besides, full Communion will probably not take the form that many invision (e.g. the current relationship between RC's and EC's).

This is part of the reason I've finally become Orthodox. My Armenian Church enjoys very good relations with Rome and I think the time has come where one can have a heart for unity and love for Rome and yet be faithful to one's Orthodox Tradition in Communion with one's Orthodox Mother Church. This, I think, is a great way to work for unity in the framework of fidelity to one's own Church Tradition.

Lawrence wrote:
Pope St Victor I (189-198) the first Latin Pope, was also the first Pope who claimed the right to make decisions that would be binding upon the entire Church. Victor excluded the churches of Asia Minor from Communion over there refusal to celebrate Easter on the same day that Rome did.

reply:
Yet many of us Orthodox might object with a point to counter-balance the idea of seeing this as an exercise of Papal Universal Supremecy by pointing out:

In the case of the Quatrodecimans the Eastern understanding of Church authority is confirmed. The Pope excommunicates a Church, the majority of bishops disagree with the Pope and do not accept his decision. So, he conforms his decision to be in harmony with the judgment of all.

"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant sharply rebuking Victor. ...[Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom..." (Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History 5:23:1-24:11).

Therefore I think the bottom line is that East and West, like many of the doctrines they differ on, have a basic agreement on how the Bishop of Rome's authority used to function in the early. What Roman Catholics have developed this into is now unnacceptable to the East. What is needed obviously is finding an application of Rome's primacy which is acceptable to the East. This is obviously easier said than done, but I think its that simple.

I have confidence that all ancient Orthodox and Catholic Churches ARE on the road to reunion. I also have confidence that this will not come in my life (except for the union of Catholics and Orthodox in my own immediate family). :-) Thanks for reading my thougths and any of your replies.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

p.s. I have a document which I think shows that Orthodox have a intellectually honest basis for finding the current form of Roman Primacy unnacceptable at the following link:

http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/tradition.html

see: Principals of Primacy in Eastern Orthodoxy