www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Petrine Views

That some Assyrians six hundred years after the events recorded in the New Testament supported a particular view of the pope's authority is hardly compelling evidence . . . especially since the West claims that its position in connection with papal authority is a revealed dogma.

The rejection by the Eastern Orthodox Churches of papal claims speaks volumes against the modern Western position.

Well, I'm not the one that brought up Nicea, so there's no inconsistency in my language.
Do you suppose our entire Faith is contained in the Ecumenical Councils? Do you suppose Sacred Tradition is composed only of the decrees of Ecumenical Councils?

Why don't we look at the evidence prior to 325 A.D.
1) The Lord states He will set one servant over His household when He leaves (Mt 24).
2) The Lord actually does this (Jn 21).
3) St. Clement rules on a matter in another country (Corinth in Greece) while St. John the Apostle is still alive, and much closer on the island of Patmos.
4) St. Ignatius states that the Church in Rome is the Church who presides in love.
5) Under the direction of Pope St. Victor, all the Churches in the Orient, East and West held local synods to discuss the Paschal controversy. This was probably the closest thing to an ecumenical gathering that the Church experienced before Nicea.
6) St. Irenaeus teaches that in doctrine the whole Church must agree with the Church in Rome.
7) St. Cyprian appeals to Rome to discipline errant bishops in Gaul and Spain.
8) St. Cyprian informs us: "[Decius] declared that he would rather have welcomed the news that a rival had appeared on the scene to claim the empire than that of the election of a new Bishop of Rome."
9) Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria regularly inquired of disciplinary and theological matters to Rome, and himself accepted correction from Pope St. Dionysius of Rome on a doctrinal matter.

What evidence do you have for your position before 325 A.D.?
1) Tertullian opposed Pope St. Callixtus after he became a heretic, but when he was orthodox, he himself pointed to Rome as the model of orthodoxy, where "the apostles poured forth all their doctrine as well as their blood," and "from which there comes into our own hands the very authority of the apostles themselves.," and whose doctrine "against which she admits no gainsayer."
2) St. Cyprian rejected the primacy of Pope St. Stephen when he disagreed with him on a matter which an Ecumenical Council had adjudged his position to be in error, but when they were of one mind, he had no problem appealing to the primacy of Rome against the heretics, going so far as to appeal to Rome to discipline errant bishops in Gaul and Spain.

BTW, you did not respond to the original point. Do you admit that you were wrong in stating that the primacy of the three Petrine sees was instituted by an Ecumenical Council?

Blessings,
Marduk

Cool. But there's two points that need to be emphasized:
1) The connection is not merely "historical." Rather, it is foundational. As Tertullian and St. Irenaeus argued (and implied by Eusebius), for example, the very validity of a local Church rests in its ability to trace its episcopal lineage to one or another of the Apostles.
2) Given the above, your appeal to some vague apostolic authority ("including Peter") is altogether insufficient.

Cool. And once you offer proof that this is what the Catholic ecclesiology actually does, I'll concede your point. I suggest providing a magisterial document that teaches "the sacrament of episcopal orders is divided up ontologically between different sees." My understanding is that the different grades of bishop are distinguished merely by function, not essence.

Agreed. And once you offer proof that this is what the head bishop is, and not merely a bishop distinguished by a greater responsibility for the unity of the Church, and all that entails in order to fulfill that function, then I'll concede your point.

As a great Latin archbishop once said, "there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church for what she is, but for what they think she is" (I'm not saying you hate the Catholic Church, but I've found his wisdom to be applicable to practically all instances when faced with criticisms of the Catholic Church)

Blessings,
Marduk

It is presumed to be foundational, but the Roman Church - according to modern historical information - existed prior to the visit of either St. Paul or St. Peter. Be that as it may, I do not see any reason to dogmatize the foundation of the Roman Church.

The sacrament of orders to episcopacy is one sacrament shared by all bishops. There is no distinct petrine sacrament.

Since Cyprian died ca. 255, and the first Ecumenical Council was in 325, how did he manage this?

I am simply asserting the common sacramental theology of both East and West. There is only one sacrament of orders to episcopacy, but I await your proof that there is an additional petrine sacrament.

Then why make the comment? As an Eastern Catholic I do find your comment rather offensive, because it implies somehow that I hate the Catholic Church (notwithstanding your denial of that intention). The fact that I reject the Western view of primacy does not mean that I hate the Catholic Church.

I hold that the pope is a bishop like any other bishop. I make no extraordinary claims in connection with his see. On the other hand, you claim that the bishop of Rome has extraordinary "powers" over other bishops, and that he has universal jurisdiction, something that is clearly not supported by the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. The burden of proof for these extraordinary claims lies with you, and not with me.

Neither the canons of Nicaea, nor those of Constantinople I, support the idea that any bishop has universal jurisdiction. In fact quite the opposite is true. Alexandria, not Rome, had jurisdiction in the provinces of Eastern North Africa, and Antioch had jurisdiction in the regions surrounding that primatial see. Rome - according to Henry Chadwick, W. H. C. Frend, and Everett Ferguson, to name just a few scholars - had jurisdiction in the suburbicarian areas around Rome. The ecumenical councils never promoted the idea that there was a bishop who holds universal jurisdiction, nor is the idea proposed that the bishop of Rome can judge matters on his own, i.e., without the consent of his own synod, or a special synod called to adjudicate an appeal from the decision of another metropolitan (see the canons of the local synod held at Serdica).

I have never asserted the idea that the whole faith is contained in the decrees and canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, so I do not know why you have asked these questions.

That said, the issue of the primacy of the bishop of Rome is not a matter of faith as far as I am concerned, but is a matter of ecclesiastical government which developed over time as a matter of human custom.

For a lot of Catholics, that is the essence of the Catholic Church. The Papacy is the Church is the Papacy.

You've made my point. As your response demonstrates, your criticism against the papacy is really not based on anything but your own perception. You are quick to answer that bishops cannot usurp primacy because it is not a matter of power, but please tell us why you think that jurisdiction/authority over other bishops is necessarily a matter of power. Convince me that having such a prerogative can never be a matter of service for the Church.

There are two things wrong with your statements here:
(1) The dogma on the primacy does not claim to be "divinely revealed" (compare, for instance, with the Marian dogmas). What it teaches is simply that St. Peter was established by Christ to be the head of the Apostles, and this headship has been acquired by the bishop of Rome through apostolic succession. Once again, that famous saying from the Latin Archbishop comes to mind (I keep forgetting his name).
(2) Rome did not hold the primacy because of her socio-political import. She held the primacy because of her apostolic establishment by Sts. Peter and Paul. This is readily proven not only by the witness of numerous early Church Fathers in the Orient, East and West, but also by the fact that even after the capital of the empire moved to Constantinople, Rome still held the primacy.

I guess you will have to part company with brother Laka, as he believes that Scripture demonstrates that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles. You can't even appeal to St. Cyprian since he specifically asserted that St. Peter held the primacy, an assertion made before and after his disagreement with Rome. In fact, I don't think you can appeal to any patristic source to support your claim.

That's fine, because the Catholic Church nor her apologists have ever made such a silly claim. On the other hand, the primacy of St. Peter is evident, as St. James deferred to the authority of Peter and Scripture as the basis for his judgment.



No problem - because, as stated, that's not what the dogma claims.

Blessings

Where does the Catholic Church make a claim that primacy is a special sacrament? That's pretty creative. You make a claim for the Catholic position which it does not even teach, and then knock it down with a bunch of empty rhetoric. That's called a straw man, btw.

Blessings

If the dogma was actually the straw man caricatures you have proposed, I wouldn't believe in it either.

Well, the dogma really has nothing to do with Alexandria and Antioch, so I don't know why you bring them up in connection with it. Is this another straw man?

Good. But when are you going to start addressing the true Catholic position, instead of proferring these straw men? Can I ask once again if you can show us where the Catholic Church teaches that the notion of primacy divides the episcopacy into parts?

Yup!

Brother, the only one here "to assert such a thing" is you, in your straw man arguments against the Catholic position.

Blessings

Where does the Catholic Church teach that there is "more bishop" in one Church than in another? Just because one bishop has a greater jurisdiction than another does not mean he is more of a bishop than any other bishop. It simply means he has a greater area of service, and a greater responsibility/function in preserving the unity of the Church. I think what you're fighting against are really your own misconceptions, not the actual teaching of the Catholic Church.

Where does it say that? The Lord says the greatest among you must serve. He doesn't say none of you shall be greater than another. Talk about injecting your preconceived notions Scripture!

No. It is primacy within collegiality (which includes synodality). According to Canon 34/35, the recognition of the head bishop is not restricted to the synodal or conciliar context.

Blessings

Once again, I need to remind you that the dogma on papal primacy does not claim to be a "revealed truth." It is simply an affirmation of the ecclesiological life of the Church since her inception.

Blessings