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

You're right, it doesn't matter if they're Protestants.

Now, let's stop the appeals to authority and show some actual evidence or valid reasoning.

Blessings

I gave you a list of materials to read. This is a complex subject that does not lend itself to proof-texting, and I am not going to transcribe entire chapters for your edification. If you are interested, find the books and read them. That's what I did.

Dear brother Stuart,

I am glad you agree that potestas in and of itself is not bad, but only when it is abused. As I stated earlier, our real concern is in the frequency, manner, and method of its use. We have divine and ecclesiastical laws that govern that use.

So it seems we are in agreement. However, it is impossible for me to accept your idea that potestas can be separated from auctoritas in the Church. As I stated earlier, potestas can be divorced from auctoritas in the secular realm, but it is impossible to do so ecclesiastically because any and all auctoritas in the Church is derived from the awareness of the laity that any authority in the Church is derived from the potestas of God Himself, not just supported by God (which is the case for the civil potestas), but rather of God. Is there anything you can offer that can counter this foundational Truth?

I theorize that you are able to divorce potestas from auctoritas in the ecclesiastical sphere because of the weakened doctrine of God’s Justice within the Eastern Tradition, which is otherwise stronger in the Oriental and Western Traditions. Do you think that has something to do with it?

I agree with you, but draw a different conclusion from those facts. That Rome maintained its primatial status despite the city becoming a “backwater,” as you put it, is very telling. It powerfully refutes the EO doctrine that the ecclesiastical primacy of a See was attached to its secular status. Amen and Amen!

I think you forget that the Second Ecum’s defense of the Holy Spirit was explicitly partially based on Pope St. Damasus’ Tome. And perhaps you also forget the indispensable role Pope St. Celestine had on the doctrine of Pope St. Cyril at the Third Ecum. And, again, let’s not forget the doctrinal letter of Pope St. Agatho to the Sixth Ecum. Council which partially formed that Council’s Definition of Faith.

Rome never rejected the theology of Filioque. I would take the example of St. Maximos over St. Photius any day with regards to the Filioque controversy. The whole issue was based on ignorance on both sides of the Greek and Latin languages.

That’s a nice theory, but let me propose a better one. Rome thought the East was in error, and therefore felt she was the only Church carrying on the true Faith. It is only to be expected that she would have a siege mentality, wanting everyone to be kept in line through uniformity. Good intentions – wrong approach. Rome has slowly, but surely, let go of that siege mentality, though I think the process is not yet complete, as reflected in our canons. Ironically, and sadly, it is now the Eastern Orthodox Church (or at least the more polemic branch, as reflected by Mt. Athos, a good portion of the Greek Orthodox Church, et al) that displays more of this siege mentality, trying to impose uniformity as the solution to unity.

I generally agree with your statements here. However, I think what is missing is an admission that the Eastern Churches had an equal ignorance of and lack of appreciation for the West and her beliefs (though I think Antioch had always been more ecumenically-minded than the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy). This mutual ignorance is, I sincerely believe, the main cause for the debate over filioque, and other issues.

Blessings

I would honestly not have the time to read them.

Perhaps you can respond to my opposition to your mother-church theory, or your local -> universal form of gov't theory by just a few quotes (entire chapters are not necessary ).

I mean, do any of those authors take into account that there was a Church of Pauline foundation with a bishop in a civic metropolis on the very same island as Corinth?

Can any of those authors give a good reason why the Church did not have an awareness of its universality that it would only look to the local synagogue, and not the Temple hierarchy, for its form of ecclesiastical government?

Etc., etc.

Blessings

It would not suffice, but go look at 1 Clement, because Clement himself does that. And he also tells the Corinthians that they should follow the example of Paul, who is the founder of both the Corinthian and Roman Churches. Peter is not the foremost Apostle mentioned in 1 Clement.


The Corinthians are appealing to Rome because Rome is seen as Paul's Church par excellence. Other Pauline Churches in the Pelopennesos are co-equal with Corinth, while Rome has special standing.


Two different issues wrapped up in one sentence.

Take the first one first: the Church was aware of its universality in the Eucharist. As Christ is one and indivisible, so the Eucharist is one and indivisible, and all those who partook of the Eucharist celebrated by a bishop ordained in the Apostolic Succession partook of the same Body and Blood of Christ. The mutual recognition and communion of bishops constituted the universality (katholike) of the Church, while its fullness (katholike) was inherent in every local Church where the Eucharist was celebrated.

On to the second issue: in the New Testament, the Greek word for priest (hieros) is applied to only three people or groups: (1) the Aaronic priesthood of the Temple; (2) Christ himself; and (3) the entire Body of Christ, who share in his priesthood. This is foundational. On the other hand, the ordained ministers of Christ are designated as "overseers" or "stewards" (episkopoi); "elders" (presbyteroi); and "servants" (diakonoi). The first two are synagogue, not temple offices; the last is sui generis--it has no parallel either in Temple or synagogue worship. In fact, the very word used by Christ to refer to his Church--ekklesia--is merely the Greek equivalent of the word for synagogue; both mean "the assembly".

On the other hand, Christ refers to the supersession of the Temple and its replacement by the temple of his own person. The Apostles--particularly Paul--were emphatic on this distinction, which both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches uphold to this day: Christ is the one High Priest; the People of God do share in his priesthood; the ordained ministers of the Church act on Christ's behalf. The use of the term hieros applied to bishops begins only in the third century, and only becomes common in the fourth as the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist rises to greater prominence. But it's sloppy theology and a definite evolution from the belief of the early Church.

Now, while the Church relied on the synagogue for its organization and the ranks of its ministers, it looked to both the Temple and the Synagogue as the model for its liturgy. The Liturgy of the Word is lifted directly from Synagogue usage, with its combination of Psalms, litanies, intercessory prayers, readings and homilies. The Liturgy of the Eucharist, on the other hand, comes from the Temple, because it is, after all, a sacrifice, albeit a bloodless one. We in the Eastern Churches also explicitly model our temples after the Jerusalem temple, with its outer and inner courtyards and its Holy of Holies.


Then we are at an impass (especially as I was going to add several more books to the list).

I once asked a question of Father Taft, and he responded by asking me if I had read one of his books. I said no. He named several other books, and I said no. And then he gave me that look, said, "Well, then, you aren't qualified to have this conversation", and he walked away. I learned my lesson from that.

Dear brother Stuart,

Pope St. Clement exhorts them to follow St. Paul’s letter to them, and all of a sudden, he is more important than St. Peter? That sounds like the normal Protestant rhetoric that St. Paul was the leader of the Church because he wrote more letters than any of the other Apostles.

So you’re saying that Rome had a universal auctoritas in the Church? Well, we certainly agree on that point. But the existence of auctoritas alone would not explain why the Corinthian Church would feel that Rome was more qualified than any of the other Pauline Churches to rule on the matter. They had to believe that Rome had a potestas – a right, a prerogative to rule on the matter - in relation to Corinth that the other Sees (Athens, Ephesus) did not have. The situation demonstrates that the primordial headship in the Church – the headship received from the model of the Apostles - was universal instead of local. It was only much later that regional headship became more practical, and eventually canonized.

The foundational principle is that “Whoever listens to you, listens to me,” as Jesus exhorted. Any auctoritas exercised in the Church is exercised by virtue of the potestas of our Lord. You have yet to demonstrate from Scripture or the Fathers that this is not the case.

So enough of this "mother Church" business. Rome did not found Corinth any more than Athens or Ephesus founded Corinth. Corinth appealed to Rome for the simple reason that it recongized she had the authority (whether as auctoritas or potestas) to settle the matter.

We’re not just talking here of a universal identity (which the Eucharistic model sufficiently exemplifies), but rather a universal mission, which requires rules and good order. Unity and universality in communion does not address the question of who has the authority to rule on matters which the local Church cannot resolve. The evidence before the 4th century points to Rome, despite the existence of other centers of Christianity. So the local -> universal theory does not hold water. At best, if one insists that local headship existed at this early stage, then one must also admit that there was a simultaneous recognition of the ultimate headship of the bishop of Rome among the bishops of every nation.

All true. But you’re missing one role in the Church given by Christ – “servant.” This was a title/role particularly attached to the Apostles, the heads of the Church. And Christ taught us that He would set one of these servants over his entire household. But this was nothing new, merely reflecting the traditional hierarchy of Israel. Accordingly, Pope St. Clement writes in his letter to the Corinthians that Moses was “a faithful servant in all His house,” and compares the whole affair with Moses’ judgment in the dispute among the 12 tribes regarding the priesthood.

I fully agree with your comment on the Liturgy, but only partially agree with your assumption of the synagogue being the sole model for the Church’s organization and ranks. If you want to leave out the synagogue in our consideration of the Church’s ecclesiastical government, and consider the Church’s hierarchy sui generis, that is fine. But if you insist on including the synagogue, then I insist as well that the Church’s self-awareness of its organizational structure necessarily went beyond the synagogue model, given the Church’s self-awareness of the universality of its mission.

In principle, I agree. And if you have a book published on the matter, I will read your thoughts expressed in that book and not bother you here. Until then, I feel no obligation to read anyone else’s books. I am interested in your thoughts, not theirs.

Blessings

Dear brother Stuart,

What do you think of this understanding of papal primacy:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html

I note especially HH's statement that Vatican 1 did "not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches."

Blessings

Needs work. For instance, while it did not assign him the power or responsibility to intervene daily, neither did it preclude him from doing so, or define the circumstances under which such intervention would be justified. In my discussions with a number of Orthodox theologians, this, much more than infallibility, is seen as a stumbling block. Infallibility can be "clarified" into nullity (if it has not already), but universal, immediate ordinary jurisdiction will require a juridical definition (much as the Orthodox hated to say so): a precise explanation of what this jurisdiction means, when it can be applied, and how it can be applied. Because, as Eastern Catholics, we know all too well (and the Orthodox have observed all too well) just how that jurisdiction works in practice today.