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

Forgive me for using anachronistic shorthand. The term may not have existed, but the reality did: various local Churches looked to the Church of their founder, or from which they are founded. In the case of the Churches of Asia, they obviously looked to Ephesus for guidance, since they considered St. John to be their founder (whether or not Paul got there first). The Church of Corinth, on the other hand, looked to Rome because they considered Paul to be their founder, and Paul was also considered to be the co-founder of the Church of Rome (it ain't all about Peter, believe me). Other major Churches--Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, Milan--likewise sent out missions and had local Churches that looked to them (by the end of the second century, Jerusalem had dropped out, due to the disruptions caused by Bar Kochba's Rebellion of 135). Very few outside of the immediate vicinity of Rome looked to Rome as their Mother Church.


Ah, but the prestige and status of the Bishop comes from the Church, not from his person. Make Benedict XVI Bishop of Podunk, and he would be the same man, the same towering intellect and spiritual presence--but he wouldn't be Pope.

If it were the man, and not the Church, then there would be no need for association of the Papacy with the Church of Rome. You could just pick some guy, and declare him Pope wherever he might be. He would become the Catholic Dalai Lama--he's out there, you just have to find him, and he can be the Pope in whatever see he presently occupies--or he could be Pope even if not ordained a bishop. As Peter's successor, he could be whatever he is (since Peter was never a bishop). As it is, there is already too much separation of the Papacy from the Church of Rome, because almost all the recent occupants of the throne have had only the most tangential connections (at best) with that diocese.

I would much prefer if we returned to the ancient practice of selecting the Pope from among the clergy of the Metropolitan Province of Rome and the suburbicanian dicoceses. Maybe then, he would go back to being the Bishop of Rome, and there would be less of the kinds of cults of personality that too frequently surround the Pope. Thus, you could get back to the much healthier situation of, say, the fourth and fifth centuries, when the most important churchman in the West was not Liberius or Damasus, but Ambrose and Augustine. Think how much more balanced Western ecclesiology would have been had the Western Empire endured just long enough that Milan and Africa could have established themselves as patriarchal Churches.


The "High Petrine" view is Peter was head of the college of the Apostles, first in dignity among them, and commissioned by Christ to strengthen the brethren in faith and unity. Nothing in that requires any of the present structures of the Papacy, for the Petrine primacy is fundamentally a mission of service, and it can and should adjust its definition and modalities to further that mission. If present definitions and modalities do not work (and even the last two Popes have said they present an obstacle to unity), then it is the Pope who much change. Otherwise, he's irrelevant.


Maybe he was, and maybe he wasn't. It would appear that he was "foreign secretary"--"praetor inter peregrinos", in Roman secular terms.

I apply them because, sacramental though the Church's true nature is, every sacrament must use matter, and for the Church, that means an organizational superstructure to carry out organizational and administrative tasks. The Church did in fact look to the best administrative organization it could find, the Empire itself, and deliberately adopted the model for itself. In this particular case, the Church of Rome had to deal with other Churches, answer correspondence from them, make decisions concerning them. To do so, it needed someone to specialize in foreign affairs, a role taken by the Praetor inter Peregrinos. Regardless of what Clement was called, that was the role he filled and the function he served.


Assuming Rome even had a single bishop at that time, and ignoring how the dignity of the See is attached to the Church, not the man sitting on the chair. See my comments above.


Eusebius is an ancient historian specializing in Church history. All ancient historians wrote with an explicit agenda, and their concept of historiography was not ours. Thus, when reading any ancient historian (or any modern one, for that matter), you need to discern agenda, examine his sources, and determine how objective he is being on a case-by-case basis. When you have a primary source (Irenaeus) that contradicts a secondary source, go with the primary source unless you can see a good reason to discount it.

No, we go with the primary source over the secondary source.


You forget that precedent was on the side of Cyprian at the time, and Cyprian's objection was to Papal interference in the prerogatives of Cyprian as bishop; i.e., by what right does the Pope claim to be able to forgive sins of penitents in a Church outside of his own? And let's not forget that Carthage was much more of a powerhouse Church in the 3rd century than Rome. So Cyprian's argument accurately reflects what was believed by the Church as a whole at that time. That Cyprian's view was eventually discredited owes a lot more to Constantine than anyone else (because the problem of the integration of the lapsed was not solved until the late fourth century), and to the fact that the Church of Africa was suppressed by the Vandals, while the Church of Rome remained last man standing in the West.

As to Cyprian's appeals to Rome, one appeals when one expects support on settled doctrine, one tries to form a consensus on things that are not.


A circular argument is a tactic of evasion.


And when people don't agree with your argument or your evidence, you accuse them of erecting straw men, making empty claims and hurling accusations. So?

Thank you, Marduk, for the response. I have not been able to respond, but I will in the next couple of days. Thank you again for the time you put into your answer. I really appreciated it.

Cyprian's Argument was Cyprian defending himself; it is far fuzzier as to whether or not it was, at the time, widely held. That, in the second millennium, Cyprianic ecclesiology became normative in the east is no proof it was wide-held in the east at the time of St. Cyprian.

Of course, it also seems every deposed bishop also held that no other bishop, or even synod, had right to depose them... the writing on such tends to be in the heat of the moment, and of the "No, you can't! WHAAAAH!!!" mode. Cyprian seems less desperate, but not free of this mode.

We see this still... in the removal of HG Nikolai of Sitka... and the OCA having locum tenens for 6 sees (according to their website). Several of which have been vacant for years. Nikolai, who was pro unification, and for strong episcopal authority, suddenly gets very different in his tone when the synod orders him out of his see, and then later deposes him as Bishop of Sitka. He Refused Met. Benjamin's order out of his see, until the full OCA synod deposed him.

Likewise, the recent Antiochian snafu.

It's human nature to rail against being deposed from office. But sch defenses need to be read carefully, for they tend to exaggerate many things.

Dear brother Aramis,

This is the most fair and level-headed assessment of the matter I've ever read. Thank you.

I appreciate the example you gave from the OCA. None of the Churches, composed of sinful human beings, are free of this inevitable weakness of human nature - pride, and the tendency to oppose ecclesiastical authority when one disagrees with that authority.

On the Oriental side, I can think of the schism among the Syrian Orthodox. Those who are now known as the Malankara Orthodox were once in full communion with the Syrian Orthodox Church. The Malankara sought independence based on nationality, and the Syrian Patriarch refused. The ensuing rhetorical exchange was strikingly reminiscent of the debates between the CC and the EOC. The Patriarchal Church claimed hegemony over the Indian Church, and did so based not only on its canons, but also on the theological principle of Petrine primacy.

Every Church needs to stop thinking of the episcopate in terms of legalistic jurisdictionalism ("I am of Apollos...I am of Paul...I am of Peter...etc.). We need to reacquire the primordial principle that the episcopate, no matter what grade (bishop, metropolitan, catholicos, patriarch, pope), is a ministry of service.

I find it altogether inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst, that those who oppose papal jurisdiction offer nothing more than an attenuated form of the same problem - i.e., the argument goes, "he can't claim jurisdiction, because this is my jurisdiction." The Absolutist and Low Petrine positions both evince the same inherent problem - they think in terms of legalistic jurisdiction.

Blessings,
Marduk

I doubt you can find any place where I made that claim, and I have presented any number of alternatives to a jurisdictional model of primacy, most of which are grounded both in Canon of the Holy Apostles 34, and a correct understanding of the concept of "honor" in the Greco-Roman culture of late antiquity. Only when both are properly understood will a Traditional and workable model of primacy be achieved.

Brother Mardukum,

As an aside, the Malankara Orthodox Church also claimed Thomasine jurisdiction/lineage as well as historical independence. The other thorny issue was that the Patriarchate has canons which forbid the election of a Patriarch from the Malankara Church (even the one united to her). This is unlike Catholicism, where at least in theory, any Catholic could be Pope, regardless of nationality or ethnicity.

Although, the Malankara Orthodox act independently today, I don't see how they pray for the Syriac Patriarch in the Great Intercession, yet generally ignore him, his authority, and are considered excommunicated by him and his holy Synod.

My understanding is the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church was formed in the 17th century by members of the Malabarese Church in response to the Synod of Diamper by those swore the Coonen Cross Oath. Prior to this, the Malabarese had been in communion with the Church of the East, and thus were nominally "Nestorian". They appealed to the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch for protection and were admitted into communion--making them at least nominally "monophysite" (my main interest here is in how unimportant these once determinative Christological issues had become one thousand years after the fact).

From what I can tell, the relations between the Malankarese Orthodox and the Syrian Orthodox Churches were cordial down to the end of the 19th century, when Patriarch Ignatios Peter IV began demanding more direct control over the Malankarese Church (which, admittedly, had asked his intervention to aid them against "protestantizing" clergy), including the transfer of Church properties to his own person. In 1912, the Malankarese Church moved its Catholicate to Kottayam and assumed de facto autocephaly--but it was the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Ignatios Abdul Masiha II who ordained Basileose Paulose as Catholicos of the East, so I am not sure what the ecclesiastical dispute is about.

As is so often the case, ongoing property litigation has further poisoned the well, but from what I can tell, there are no outstanding theological disputes.

Dear brother Stuart,


If nothing else, at least we’re assured that you’re definitely Catholic, since that rhetoric is one of the most common Catholic rejoinders to non-Catholic polemics. In any case, I can’t agree with you, as explained below.

Your rhetoric doesn’t make sense. St. Paul founded the Churches in Asia, and it is inconsistent to claim that means nothing ecclesiologically speaking for the Churches in Asia, while you insist that it must mean something for the Church in Corinth. Further, this doesn’t even address the matter of Athens, which had explicit Pauline foundation. Why Rome, and not Athens or Ephesus, which had even more explicit Pauline origins than Rome (i.e., St. Paul sdmitted in the Epistle to the Romans that someone else had already established the Roman Church before him), and were more easily accessible? Unless you can give us a good reason to discount these other Churches, the “Mother Church” rationale is not convincing.

Agreed, but this does not contradict the evidence that the bishop of Rome was/is the coryphaeus of the bishops of every nation (Apostolic Canon 34/35).


I really don’t see how that would change anything. The prestige of the See of Rome would automatically redound to its bishop, so the bishop of Rome would have obtained “cult status” no matter where that bishop came from.

I don’t know how the quality of being more important than another affects the reality of the bishop of Rome being the coryphaeus of the bishops of every nation.

That’s a difference between your Eastern mindset and my own Oriental mindset. It seems the Easterns are fond of multiplying patriarchates and legal jurisdictions, while the Oriental (and Western) Tradition prefers to maintain the patristic order of the Pentarchy (as a Catholic and Oriental, I personally favor the triadic patristic order of Nicea - Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch).

While the Absolutist Petrine view that is currently permissible in the Catholic Church must be discarded, the Low Petrine view that is currently permissible in the Eastern Orthodox Church must also be discarded. The Low Petrine view expressed by many Eastern Orthodox (fully recognizing that there are also many EO who adhere to the High Petrine view) is just as much an obstacle to unity as the Absolutist Petrine view. The only possible solution, ISTM, is for the Absolutist Petrine view to be downgraded, just as much as the Low Petrine view must be upgraded, to the High Petrine position. The High Petrine position is the only possible solution, not only because it presents the practicable middle ground, but most importantly because it is the actual biblical, apostolic and patristic model.

That theory fails on several counts. First and foremost, there is no evidence, and thus no reason to believe otherwise, that the Church accommodated any feature of the Roman administrative system to itself until much, much later.

Second, if we can believe St. Paul (and we can), the office of correction belonged to the bishop (see his Epistles to Sts. Timothy and Titus).

Third, if we can believe the example of Acts 15 (and we can), it is the head of the local Church that gives the judgment, and writes in the name of the Church. There is simply no convincing reason to believe that Rome would accommodate to itself a secular administrative system, where a biblical and apostolic system was famously known, available, and already in place.

Basically, the theory you propose is an argument from silence. You can’t find any mention of the office of bishop distinguished from that of presbyter in St. Clement’s letter (nor mention of a bishop in St. Ignatius’ letter to the Romans), and jump to the conclusion that the office of bishop therefore did not exist. This forces you to impose an anachronism to fill the gap. But there is a more sensible explanation than the one commonly proposed by Protestants as to this seeming silence. As we all know, every bishop is a presbyter/priest, but not all priests are bishops, and bishops were chosen from the presbyters. It is altogether to be expected if a bishop calls the priests under him his “fellow presbyters.” So there is no diminution o f the deacon-priest-bishop hierarchy simply because a certain writer who is bishop does not himself admit to being a bishop. Did St. James identify himself as the head (i.e., the bishop) of the Jerusalem Church? No, even though we know from irrefutable Tradition that he was. Did St. Polycarp identify himself as the head or bishop of the Church in Smyrna? No, even though we know from the contemporary witness of St. Ignatius of Antioch that he was.

Please see my comments above.

There are two huge[/b] problems with your response.

First, the accounts of St. Irenaeus and Eusebius do not contradict. The first is simply St. Irenaeus writing from his own perspective. On the other hand, Eusebius is writing as an historian with many more documents and points of view at his disposal. So Eusebius’ account is really just a more complete account of the subject incident. Basically, your appeal to St. Irenaeus is really nothing more than another argument from silence (i.e., “St. Irenaeus did not mention it, therefore it must be false and contradictory to his account”).

Second, and most damaging to your position, is that fact that probably 90% of what we have of St. Irenaeus’ account [i]comes from Eusebius himself, just one of the many accounts at his disposal.

Can you please explain what “precedent” you are referring to?

Can you please give for us an exact quote from St. Cyprian stating anything remotely similar to what you say here? I suggest you start with Epistle 54, St. Cyprian’s letter to Pope St. Cornelius on this very matter, wherein St. Cyprian unequivocally asserts: “[the heretics]still dare to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the Apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Papal primacy and papal infallibility in one concise statement – and this from the chief early patristic support of advocates of the Low Petrine view!

I can’t agree because St. Cyprian himself, writing to Pope St. Cornelius stated: “Since Rome from her greatness plainly ought to take precedence of Carthage.” Good luck finding any trace whatsoever from St. Cyprian of the EO doctrine that a See has precedence because of its socio-political status.

I agree, but not based on the (mis)interpretation of the events that you proposed. Rather, I agree that St. Cyprian’s statement from Epistle 54 quoted above accurately reflects what was believed by the Church as a whole at the time.

I have quoted St. Cyprian’s true view above, a view he espoused and promoted before he had the unfortunate disagreement with Pope St. Stephen. The ones who have discredited that true view of St. Cyprian are the non-Catholic, anti-papal polemicists.

He wasn’t asking for Rome’s consensus or support. He was asking the bishop of Rome to discipline errant bishops.

No. Evasion occurs when there is an attempt to avoid the weakness of one’s position by not even trying to address or refute the opponent’s actual argument. Straw man and tu quoque argumentation are correct examples of evasion. On the other hand, fallacies such as circular argumentation or appeals to emotion or appeals to authority, albeit rhetorically invalid, actually attempt to address the opponent’s argument, and cannot properly be regarded as evasion.

I only accuse others of straw men when they try to refute claims I never made, which you have, unfortunately, done several times.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,

I actually did not have you in mind when I wrote that. I am well aware of your arguments. I believe we are more in agreement than you perceive. What I object to in your rhetoric is your automatic and immediate imposition of a monarchical, jurisdictional absolutist mentality on anyone who wants to defend the headship of the bishop of Rome. In the process of doing so, I believe you perhaps inadvertantly deny some basic and rather obvious facts from patristic sources demonstrating this headship.

Blessings,
Marduk

I only do that because your advocacy of the status quo seems to imply that is what you believe.

Dear brother Michael,

It sounds strangely sedevacantist.

Blessings

About a decade ago, I read on the internet from priestly sources (not just lay apologetics) on the Patriarchal side accusing the Malankara Orthodox of the heresies of phyletism and of denying the apostolic principle of Petrine primacy. I kind of kept up with the debates for a while. Several years ago, however, when I attempted to reacquire those online sources, I discovered that there was a general moratorium on discussion/debate about the issue in several SOC websites, and those sources were no longer available.

It is this common belief between the CC and Syriac Churches in general (Syriac Orthodox, ACOE) which regards Petrine primacy not as a mere canonical matter, but a theological one, as well, that has caused the greatest fruits of reconciliation between any of the apostolic Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

So you think that to demonstrate the prerogative to discipline and correct other bishops can be interpreted only and always in a legalistic, absolutist sense? I have always seen that as a ministry of service for the Church.

Please respond to that, and while doing so, can you also please give us two or three direct quotes from me that could only be interpreted in a legalistic, absolutist sense.

Blessings

I do not see anywhere in the argument for the Petrine primacy any mandate to do more than exhort and persuade. As I said, outside of his province, the Bishop of Rome has no power over any other bishop. On the other hand, if you understand the meaning of the Latin term auctoritas, then you understand how primacy was defined and exercised at the time it was most effective and most widely accepted. Rome's juridical claims (potestas) expand in inverse proportion to the recognition of Rome's auctoritas.

If primacy is to function within a communion of Churches, then it can only be derived from moral suasion and the proper desire of all to defer to all according to status and gifts. Auctoritas and potestas are not the same, and one who with a sufficiency of the former can have significantly more influence than someone with an unlimited amount of the latter.

Mardukm:
Suffraganism existed at least as early as the 1st council, where the patriarchates came into formal recognition; likewise Chorbishops.

The term may not have, but the English term Suffrage means Voting Privilege or Short Intercessory Prayer; a Suffragan has a vote, and prays for his superior(s) in the liturgy...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suffrage

We can see also in the letters of Peter and Paul that various sees still looked to them after bishops had been elected for them. Likewise, in acts, those around Jerusalem to St. James. And in history, those around Alexandria to St Mark, Antioch to St Andrew, and in India to St. Thomas.

Society in that era was highly hierarchical; claiming the church wasn't defies basic logic; heck, in Acts, we see the creation of the deaconate and the priesthood (as separate from the apostolate/episcopacy), and even in the Letters, we see a distinction between bishops and apostles... the sees of the Apostles becoming the great centers of the Church, for where they died, so also lived their longest coterminus students... those who'd spent the most time with the apostle.

Further still Acts shows Matthias being elected to take Judas place. Not just to fill out the numbers but to fill Judas' empty spot in the 12. And he wasn't even noted for having been Judas' student; he is Judas' heir as Apostle.

And the Jews likewise had civil and religious hierarchies... by birth for both being common. The Levites (scribes) and Priests being born to those roles, then trained.

So looking at the societies, and the cultures, it's rather unlikely these men did not have a sense of hierarchy before they formalized one in council. If nothing else, that they had bishops, and wrote to the apostles for guidance, and to St Clement as well in the same mode, indicates at least one layer of episcopal hierarchy: Apostle and Bishop are not in practice synonyms; All Apostles are clearly bishops, but not all bishops apostles.