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

I think you mean, "the two foundations of the Absolutist Petrine conception of papal primacy." The problem with that is that papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction as defined by the Catholic Church, as reflected in her canons past and present, as exercised in the Church past and present, does not support the Absolutist Petrine view. A lot of Catholics (the great majority of such Catholics being Latins) and a lot of Orthodox think this way. Perhaps the best solution is not a rejection of them, but rather a right understanding of them, which is reflected in the High Petrine view.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don't really know what you mean by this. Can you explain?

In any case, I surely hope it is meant to bark and not to bite, for authority should not be practiced as "lording over others," but rather as a ministry of service.

Blessings

Well, I have to disagree. I find it impossible that the Church did not have an awareness that it was the fulfillment of the Jewish hierarchical priesthood, as well as the fact that, most importantly, it was universal. So it doesn't make sense that they would only look to the local synagogue as a model, and not rather both the synagogue and the Temple.

Orthodox (and Protestants) make much of the fact that Jesus is High Priest and that only he can be the head of the Church. But these seem to forget that Jesus is the model for every level of the sacerdotal hierarchy, not just the High Priesthood. It is illogical to assume that no one can fill the position of High Priest (as head) except Jesus himself since Jesus already fulfills that role - if that is so, since Jesus also fulfills every level of the sacerdotal ministry, then we should have no need for priests and bishops either. The argument that there can be no head of the Church universal except Christ is really just an attenuated form of the Protestant arguments against the priesthood and episcopate.

Blessings

P.S. Your longest reply regarding the potestas/auctoritas issue will have to wait.

I have been all over Matthew 24, and do not find a corresponding passage. What did you have in mind?


Peter is commissioned to feed the sheep. Nowhere does he make Peter the Chief Shepherd.

.

We went over this, and you did not respond to my objection: (a) Corinth appealed to Rome to resolve the dispute; and (b) Corinth did so because it considered the Church of Rome to be its particular mother Church, because Rome was co-founded by Paul.


Been over this one, too, and no response from you: It is the Church which has priority, not its bishop. The bishop derives his auctoritas from the Church and not vice versa. As I said, if it were simply a matter of being heir of Peter, then any Petrine see (or any see at all) would do, and the connection between the Papacy and Rome would be unnecessary.


Apparently, there was nothing in dispute between Smyrna and Antioch, but there was between Rome and the Churches of the East, so Polycarp went on his own behalf and that of the other Churches. After all, Ignatian ecclesiology being in the rule, every bishop represented the fullness of the Church.


Never happened. Moreover, not one of the first seven Ecumenical Councils was ever convened by a Pope or presided over by a Pope; most were never even formally ratified by a Pope until long after the fact.


No, he teaches that Apostolic Succession is the touchstone of orthodoxy, and Rome is the model of Apostolic Succession. Irenaeus himself disagreed with Pope Victor in the Quartodeciman controversy.


It's not Peter but Peter and Paul together to whom he points, and again, it's the Church not the bishop that has the priority. Oh, well.


Because those bishops are under the authority of Rome, while he, Bishop of Carthage, has no control over them. Cyprian objects strenuously when Rome attempts to interfere in the affairs of his Church, which is not under the authority of Rome.


The Church has priority. That was already agreed.


That's a howler.


How truly good. In and of itself, this proves nothing, particularly when the Archbishop of Alexandria claimed prerogatives unknown by another Patriarch, including the Bishop of Rome.

Basically, then, it is Markdum contra mundus, since not only Church historians but also the theologians of the Catholic Church are on my side for this one.

Evasion. You did not even address my rationale. All you've got to say is, "just because you say so."

BTW, can you please point out where the Ravenna document states that the early Church used the model of the synagogue? Appeals to authority are in themselves invalid, especially when those authorities have no legislative power, and even more especially when those authorities don't even claim what you pretend it does.

Blessings

What I am saying is my theological and historical foundation is more sound than yours on this matter. And where does the Ravenna Statement come into play, please? As for my sources, I can list them here:

Geoffrey Wainwright & Karen B Westerfield Tucker, eds., Oxford History of Christian Worship, Oxford University Press, 2006, esp. Ch. 2, "The Apostolic Tradition" by Maxwell Johnson.

R.T. Beckwith, "The Jewish Background to Christian Worship"; and Frank Hawkins, "Orders and Ordination in the New Testament"; both in Jones, Wainright, Yarnold and Bradshaw, eds., The Study of Liturgy, Rev. Ed., Oxford University Press, 1992.

Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity, Intervarsity Press, 1992

F.F. Bruce, New Testament History, Doubleday, 1980

Karl Donfried and Peter Richardson, eds. Judaism and Christianity in First Century Rome, Eerdmans Publishing, 1998

WHC Frend, The Early Church, Fortress Press, 1982

___________, The Rise of Christianity, Fortress Press, 1984; see esp. Chapter 4, "The Christian Synagogue, AD 70-135".

I can compile a larger bibliography--all of these and many more are on my bookshelf, but I have to start dinner. It really doesn't matter, though, because all are in essential agreement: the early Church hierarchy is derived from the synagogue, not the Temple (though Christian liturgy incorporates aspects of both).

I am afraid that history is not on your side. As far as the things you listed in your post are concerned, it is your interpretation of those things that I reject, and of course Stuart has shown quite nicely how each point conforms to a Eucharistic - as opposed to a universalist - ecclesiology.

Mardukm,

I will say this . . . if I were to accept your views on papal primacy as truly representative of the Eastern Catholic position, I would have no alternative but to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, but so far you have not been able to convince me that your position is correct; while Stuart seems - at least based upon my own studies - to be spot on.

God bless,
Todd

Dear brother Stewart,

"Who then is the faithful and wise servant whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time?"

You'll have to take that one up with all the early Church Fathers who unanimously regarded St. Peter as the coryphaeus of the Apostles (regardless of how you interpret that phrase). As I said, you might want to check out St. John Chrysostom and St. Ambrose, just two of the numerous Fathers who taught this doctrine of Petrine primacy.

You'd better go back over the thread. I responded fully to this, yet you did not even touch the matter after my response. Your "Mother-church" theory is unconvincing, and I gave you solid reasons for that. Reply to my response first, before making an empty accusation, please.

Again, go back over the thread. Again, I responded fully and you kept silent after my response. I stated that the priority of the Church automatically redounds to its bishop. What's your response? Nada.

But Smyrna was not the metropolitan Church in Asia. It was either Ephesus or Antioch. If the local -> universal model was actually the case, you have absolutely no grounds to state that Polycarp went to Rome "on his own behalf and that of the other Churches."

Further, there were other Churches in the West and East who did not celebrate Easter according to St. Polycarp's Church. Why go to Rome? Or, if he actually met with other bishops in other cities, why is the meeting with the bishop of Rome more worthy to be recorded for posterity than others?

The ultimate point here is that the idea of national or regional jurisdictions did not exist until the 4th century. After the universal apostolic model, there was only one head bishop of the bishops of every nation, one head bishop of the entire Church - the one in Rome. The evidence fully supports the universal -> local model, and contradicts the local -> universal model.

Not according to Eusebius, or did you miss that part of my response, too? I only noticed silence from you after my rejoinder to your claim that St. Irenaeus and Eusebius' accounts contradicted each other.

Which is to be expected, given the caeseropapistic environment of the times. But what about now? Even the Low Petrine advocates grant to head bishops the administrative prerogative of convoking a plenary council. There's no question that, at least logically speaking, that it is the bishop who holds the primacy in the universal Church who should have the administrative prerogative of convoking an ecumenical council.

Not personally. He often sent legates. That was the Tradition. For example, Pope St. Cyril was president of the Third Ecum Council as legate of Pope St. Celestine.

Which councils would those be exactly? And your statement is a bit misleading. You make this statement as if they were already ecumenical before the Pope's ratification. It's altogether hypocritical for controversialists to appeal to the principle of unanimity for an ecumenical council to be ecumenical, yet simultaneously argue that the Western Patriarch's ratification is not necessary.

And you think this refutes my statement how exactly? Obviously, if Rome is the exemplar, then she should be followed.

On a canonical matter, not a doctrinal one. So your rejoinder is a straw man.

Further, the High Petrine view does not claim that the Pope is above correction - that's another straw man.

You sound like there are supposed to be two bishops in Rome. The foundation of a Church is not always absolutely equated to the succession of a Church. For example, there are Churches in Asia who claim episcopal succession from St. John, even though they were founded by St. Paul. The Church in Corinth was certainly founded by St. Paul, but its episcopal succession comes from St. Apollos. It is no contradiction that even though the foundation of the Church in Rome is regarded to be Sts. Peter and Paul (though it should be stressed that St. Paul in his Letter to the Romans admitted that another had founded the Church there before him ;)), Tradition indicates that the episcopal succession has its source from St. Peter. So the "Peter and Paul" rhetoric really is irrelevant.

Oh the drama! You guys bend over backwards to claim "every bishop is equal," but in the face of historical facts such as this, all of a sudden, "Oh, we didn't mean every bishop. Just the ones that support our Low Petrine view." Utterly laughable! Brother, this is no response, but only betrays the anachronism and the inconsistency of the Low Petrine position.

And that priority automatically redounds to its bishop, which you cannot refute.

No response?

Well, whatever prerogatives those were (I'm saying that rhetorically, of course), the facts I gave demonstrate that they existed, in St. Dionysius of Alexandria's eyes, without prejudice to the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

A rhetoric full of evasion, straw men, and inconsistency (I'm sorry to say) is hardly something worthy on which to base your confidence, ISTM.

Blessings

Sorry, but Protestant sources who have an agenda biased against the papacy really, really, really, really, really has no meaning to me. I'm surprised it should influence you so greatly. Oh well.

You still haven't directly responded to any of the points I made countering your claim that the headship model was first local and then universal. That would indicate that the Church had no conception of its universal character from the start, and only gradually came to a realization in the fourth century, which is inconceivable. Rather, the universal character of the Church was established from the very beginning, explicit in the Great Commission of Jesus to the Apostles. The Jews had a universal focal point in the Temple. It boggles the mind that the Church, easily as sacramental as her Jewish forbear, would not similarly have an awareness of a universal focal point.

Really, I understand your position. As an Oriental I've always held the High Petrine view, but before I became Catholic, it was lacking in an awareness and full understanding of what the universal nature of the Church means. But that position to me now is utterly illogical, unbiblical, unapostolic, and unpatristic.

And sorry about the Ravenna comment. You mentioned Ravenna in relation to another point I made in response to the same issue (local -> universal), so I inadvertantly made the mental connection.

Blessings

It was not an evasion at all. I did not think it necessary to quote Stuarts posts when they are only a page or two above my own. Stuart has refuted each of your interpretations of the points listed. That you do not like or agree with his refutations is irrelevant.

God bless,
Todd

If you only knew Geoffrey Wainwright as I do, I seriously doubt you would make such a statement. He is highly regarded by Pope Benedict, and was highly regarded by Pope John Paul II. He also holds both of them in high regard. Furthermore, I have personally heard him state that he believes that if there is to be visible unity of all Christians in one Church, it must be through the Bishop of Rome. You will hardly find a Protestant who holds the papacy in higher esteem than does Geoffrey Wainwright. Furthermore, you will find very few living liturgical scholars of any background who can match his reputation.

Father Robert Taft would probably rebuke you for your rejection of sources based upon the confession of the authors. And he would remind you that scholarship knows no confessional boundaries, and truth is found where it is. It just so happens that Protestant scholars were among the first and remain among the leaders in conducting objective historical investigation of early Church history, and in particular, the relationship between Judaism and Christianity at the dawn of the Christian era (something which, by the way, did not fit at all into Protestant apologetics). Or perhaps you've never heard of E.P. Sanders and N.T. Wright? Catholic scholars rely on Protestant scholars all the time, and we are better off for it.

But weren't you also equally dismissive of Francis Dvornik's work? Dominicans aren't Catholic enough, perhaps? Or is it more a case of Red Queen's justice: sentence first, verdict later?

He did not evade all the points, only some. In others, he was simply using straw man and inconsistent arguments. If I simply stated that I did not like or agree with them period, my comments would indeed be irrelevant. But I gave reasons to back them up, which he has not bothered to address.

Blessings