www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Primacy of St. Peter

Hello,

I recently listened to a lecture with an Eastern Orthodox person, and he actually denied the primacy of the Apostle Peter. I was wondering if this denial is standard-fare among the Eastern Orthodox. Back when I identified with Orthodoxy, I accepted the primacy of Peter. So I was shocked by what I heard in the lecture. He totally ignored the teaching of the fathers, and argued like a Protestant when he gave his person interpretations of Scripture, and even gave the Protestants interpretation of Matthew 16, where Jesus gave the keys to Peter.

Christ is Risen!!

Theo777:

Welcome to the forum.

Please understand that the understanding of what Peter's primacy was in the first millenium and today differs from the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome. This issue has a long history and many polemics on both sides. The current Catholic model that has been stretched by Vatican I is absolutely unacceptable to the other Churches of Apostolic origin in the East and to all Protestants.

Pope St John Paul II, of thrice blessed memory, asked that the Eastern Churches and Protestant communities join the Catholic Church in coming to an understanding of what the primacy should look like and how it should be exercised, but as far as I know that endeavor has not yet begun. He suggested that the primacy should be exercised as a ministry of service to all the Churches and Christian communities, but, again, that has not yet come to pass.

Objections to the way papal primacy is exercised are usually that the Bishop of Rome seems to act as if his office allows him to make decisions unilaterally that affect the entire Christian world. Particularly the Vatican I decision that the pope has universal personal jurisdiction everywhere--meaning in the diocese of every bishop in the world. That is a non-starter for all the other Churches of Apostolic origin, not to mention to all Protestants.

So don't be startled when you read or hear positions that are different than that of Rome in regard to the primacy of Peter and his successors.

The question I have for you is if you identified with the Roman position of Peter's primacy when you "identified with Orthodoxy." That may be what is troubling you.

Bob
Moderator

My take on the poster's thread is that the Orthodox lecturer is denying the Primacy of Peter; not anyone's interpretation of that Primacy which I think is unquestioned in both Catholic and Orthodox circles. Perhaps my assumption is incorrect, and there are those within Orthodox circles who deny that the Apostle Peter had a primacy within the Apostolic College.

Christ is Risen!!

Not having been there or heard the actual lecture, your interpretation may well better reflect the poster's intention.

Bob

Thanks for the reply. Can you explain what you mean wen you say the modern Catholic Church has a different view of St. Peter's primacy than the Church of the first millennium? Can you give evidence for that?

Yes. I have found that to be the case. I think they rely on information from a time when the scholarship wasn't that good.

Don't think it's scholarship; I think rather it's from a time when polemics were riper than they are now. But, I think these are a minority who chose to prolong these battles for what reasons, I'm not sure.

I think the current Catholic position on the primacy of Peter can be seen in its definition at Vatican I where the short version is that the Pope enjoys "universal primary jurisdiction" in every diocese or eparchy in the world. I believe that this is far from the position held in the first millennium, even by Cardinal Humbert at the time of his notorious trip to Constantinople that marks the formal beginning of the Great Schism.

I wouldn't say "far from the position held in the first millennium." Here is a quote from St. Maximus the Confessor. Let me know if you agree; if not, please explain.

"... Rome, that is, the Apostolic See, which from God the Incarnate Word Himself as well as all the holy Councils, according to the sacred canons and definitions, has received and possesses supreme power in all things and for all things, over all the holy churches of God throughout the world, as well as power and authority of binding and loosing. For with this church, the Word, who commands the powers of heaven, binds and looses in heaven." [PG 91: 144]

Christ is Risen!!

Theo777:

It is my understanding that in the Christian East no single father is the authority on such matters. So to quote one means little. It is the consensus that determines how any point is understood. There is a strongly worded position, for example, from The Church of the East, that states that they regard the primacy of St Peter and give deference to his successors but that they ARE the Catholic Church in their canonical territory and no outside bishop makes decisions for them in that territory; that they have their own canonical tradition and canons that govern them. Likewise the Oriental Orthodox Churches took a similar stance after the Council of Chalcedon. And the Chacedonian Orthodox in the 11th century.

Indeed, He is Risen!

I think that most theologians and hierarchs of the Christian East in union with Rome would disagree with that assessment and offer a much more nuanced explication. It always amazes me that the Orthodox churches, who universally esteem St Maximus for his theology and spirituality, do not acknowledge that on the issue of that Apostolic See he might be expressing the universal thought of the Church, both East & West, in the 7th century. I have found no Church Father, east or west, in that period, who would deny what St. Maximus wrote about the See of Rome.

Christ is Risen!!

I would have to agree with you. I really have no skin in the game of arguing this point, being a Latin Catholic. My stance here is to try to present some of the things I have read fro others' points of view. I have tried to "see myself as others see me"--a theme adopted form my high school class as we embarked on our journeys. It's sometimes stunning to see how others view us; humbling, too.

Bob

The book by St. Anthony's Monastery on the tollhouses highly esteems St. Maximus the Confessor, and says something to the effect that his teachings are thoroughly Orthodox. If they follow that line of reasoning consistently, then they will have to accept the Roman primacy.

Another thing about St. Maximus the Confessor is that he accepted the Lateran Council of 649, equating it with an ecumenical council. The Lateran Council affirms the Roman primacy.

Hi Theo777, you are assuming that any fathers who did state what seems like Roman primacy meant that such a primacy exists forever, without exception. Just one or a thousand quotes stating primacy, does not show whether or not the Saint meant this in the context of Rome retaining the faith during that moment, compared to other Sees who'd had heresies in the Saints day; or if there was another reason for the statement. It also does not show whether this view held an "eternal" Roman primacy, or whether if such a heresy falls at Rome and Peoria, IL held the faith, whether the primacy would move to Peoria.

There are many assumptions made by both primacy holders and primacy deniers.