Former Catholic: Eastern Orthodox

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]I would also like a reference to the quote coming from St. Maximus. I cannot seem to find it in any of my saying of St. Maximus the Confessor published by Regina Press.[/quote]

It is his letter to Peter, governor of Syria and Palestine.

[quote]his idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster.[/quote]

The local Church is a microcosm of the universal Church. The concept of a "body" cannot be taken too far. Does the Body of Christ go to the bathroom? Does it shave its beard?

[quote] Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic authority if the Pope may contradict his orders. Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it.[/quote]

No, he is not stripped of his Apostolic authority. He simply has the Apostolic authority given to him, which is under the greater pastoral authority of the Bishop of Rome. Such has always been the faith of the Church.

[quote]The fact is I have read the Fathers of the Church and specifically the pre-schismatic Popes. None of them held the power which Pontiffs do today. These were all innovations placed forth after the Great Schism when Rome broke off from the Church.[/quote]

St. Leo the Great, writing in the fifth century, flatly contradicts this assertion, as cited above:

[quote]"From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church. Thus, although among the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, it is really Peter who rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler"[/quote]

And elsewhere, Leo the Great writes:

[quote]"Although Bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others...Through them [the Bishops with greater responsibility] the care of the universal Church would converge on the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head."[/quote]

St. Leo the Great was quite emphatic in expounding the Church's faith in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. He was simply echoing the constant faith of the Church, as evidenced by St. Irenaeus in the second century:

[quote]"Since, however, it would be very tedious in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this] by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of its preeminent authority..." (Against Heresies)[/quote]

[quote]Put another way, there is no Church where there is no bishop, and there is no bishop where there is no succession of bishops from the Apostles (apostolic succession); and there can be no succession from the bishops without the faith of the Apostles.[/quote]

We agree with this. Which is why we distinguish between the Orthodox "Churches" and the Protestant "Communities".

[quote] At the same time, there can be no Eucharist - and no other Mysteries - without a bishop who teaches the true faith to the baptized.[/quote]

This we disagree with. The validity of the Sacraments are ensured by the form and intent of the minister, not his personal faith. This controversy was resolved a long time ago in the time of the Donatist heretics.

Edited April 12, 2005 by Eremite

[dspen2005]

there is nothing inherently wrong with the Missa Normativa. In fact, when celebrated and prayer according to the strict rubrics of the GIRM, and Sancrosanctum Concilium, the Mass can be just as spiritually elevating and glorious as the TLM. From reading your short bio, it seemed as if the basis of your conversion to the Orthodox Faith was because of the Mass. You made a short reference to papal supremacy -- which is discussed and defended both Biblically and by the Early Church Fathers..... (a reference will follow this posting) -- still, is there something else that effected this response?

[dspen2005]

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"

Fathers of the Church throughout the early centuries of the Church might be cited for hours, but what no one can provide is the testimony of even one of them denying this primacy. Even when their were disputed matters, such as involved St. Cyprian of Carthage and the pope, he still insisted on the primacy, writing in 255 or 256 A.D.:

Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ. Indeed this oneness of the Church is indicated in the Song of Songs, when the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Lord's name, says, 'One is my dove, my perfect one, to her mother the only one, the chosen of her that bore her." If someone does not hold fast to this unity of the Church, can he imagine that he holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, can he still be confident that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this very thing and displays the sacred sign of unity when he says: 'One body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God' (Eph 4:4-6).

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Read the Early Fathers and get their take on the Chair of St. Peter. I'd post some, but I don't have time...

[ICXCNIKA]

So then, my dear Catholic friends...explain this to me as if I were a four year old. If Peter had any kind of supremacy over the Church, then tell me why in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles was St. James the Brother of Our Lord, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the President of the Council? And why didn't Peter's decision concerning Gentiles in the Church come into fruition? I am sure as heck glad that it didn't, otherwise I would be restricted from baptism and chrismation in the Church.

Please do not take this into any offense, but I simply would like to see the evidence. Heaven knows, that I pray fervently for the two churches to be reunited, and I am in a way looking across the Tiber so to speak, longing to return back to my roots. But, in all honestly, the Roman Catholic Church is a morass of liturgical abuse and semper reformata.

[ICXCNIKA]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Apr 12 2005, 10:03 AM'] Regarding Papal Primacy, I would point you to St. Maximus the Confessor (not to mention the Fathers themselves), who is honored by Catholics and Orthodox alike:
[/quote]
Primacy--Yes. Universal Jurisdiction, no. Primacy of Honor, yes. Rome lost that honor when she broke away from the East. Now Constantinople has been offered that honor in her place.

n summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God's Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25‑27).

Before the schism, in times of ecclesiastical discord and theological controversies, appeals for peaceful resolutions and mediation were made to the pope from all parts of the Christian world. For instance, in the course of the iconoclast controversy, St Theodore the Studite (759‑829) urged the emperor to consult the pope: "If there is anything in the patriarch's reply about which you feel doubt or disbelief... you may ask the chief elder in Rome for clarification, as has been the practice from the beginning according to inherited tradition." From an Orthodox perspective, however, it is important to emphasize that these appeals to the bishop of Rome are not to be understood in juridical terms. The case was not closed when Rome had spoken, and the Byzantines felt free on occasion to reject a Roman ruling.

In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole Church. The bishop of Rome will, of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic church and in times of need be its spokesman. The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierarchical order within the Church, still less to a single see. In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith.

Peter never claimed dominion over the other Apostles--he was simply so charismatic, that he led the pack. James was, indeed, the president of the Church in Jerusalem in the early days. Plus--Peter was Bishop of Antioch, before he went to Rome to be martyred--so the Patriarchs of Antioch are equally his successors.

So let's get it straight guys. The theological stuff is camouflage--the central issue is political--in other words control.

Edited April 13, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Primacy--Yes. Universal Jurisdiction, no. Primacy of Honor, yes. Rome lost that honor when she broke away from the East. Now Constantinople has been offered that honor in her place.[/quote]

This does not square with the Patristic witness. Pope St. Leo the Great is very clear that the Apostles were all equal in honor, but there was a distinction in authority among them, and St. Peter ruled all the other Apostles.

[quote]He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service[/quote]

Earthly authority is not opposed to humble service. The Bishop of Rome serves the Church by exercising his authority. Denying the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is an attack on the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church. It cannot be accepted.

[quote]Peter never claimed dominion over the other Apostles[/quote]

The Fathers of the Church, among them St. John Chrysostom, claim otherwise. We can wax poetic all we want about our own theologies. The real question is: What did the Fathers say? I have provided quite a bit of evidence in this thread indicating what the Fathers did in fact believe. That is the only basis for this discussion.

[quote]Plus--Peter was Bishop of Antioch, before he went to Rome to be martyred--so the Patriarchs of Antioch are equally his successors.[/quote]

The Fathers of the Church never accepted such a thesis. Rome was always the center of authority. St. Irenaeus never said "Every Church must agree with the the Church of Antioch, on account of its preeminent authority". He said Rome. Again, this all comes down to what the Fathers say. Nothing else matters.

[quote]The theological stuff is camouflage--the central issue is political--in other words control.[/quote]

You haven't addressed a single Patrisic witness I have presented, and then you claim it's all political?

[quote]If Peter had any kind of supremacy over the Church, then tell me why in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles was St. James the Brother of Our Lord, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the President of the Council?[/quote]

Who was the first to speak at the Council, while everyone was debating?

[quote]And why didn't Peter's decision concerning Gentiles in the Church come into fruition?[/quote]

Huh? If you are referring to Peter's scandalous actions, for which he was rebuked by St. Paul, these were nothing more than scandalous actions. As Catholic history makes abundantly clear, Popes are not immune from scandalous actions.

[quote]but I simply would like to see the evidence[/quote]

With all due respect, I have provided a lot of evidence in this thread, and you have not dealt with any of it.

[quote]Heaven knows, that I pray fervently for the two churches to be reunited, and I am in a way looking across the Tiber so to speak, longing to return back to my roots.[/quote]

Well, I can certainly join in you that prayer.

[quote]But, in all honestly, the Roman Catholic Church is a morass of liturgical abuse and semper reformata.[/quote]

Welcome to the realities of history. The gates of hell will never prevail. That doesn't mean they won't come calling.

[ICXCNIKA]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Apr 13 2005, 08:05 AM']
This does not square with the Patristic witness. Pope St. Leo the Great is very clear that the Apostles were all equal in honor, but there was a distinction in authority among them, and St. Peter ruled all the other Apostles.
[/quote]
Then pray tell, why isn't Christianity a religion for Jews, then? Peter may have had primacy over the Apostles, but he didn't have jurisdiction over them. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion (well, perhaps if you are of Jewish ethnic background).

"you haven't responded to any of it"

All your quotes deal with PRIMACY. NOT SUPREMACY. It does not prove that the Pope had universal jurisdiction over all the Christian world, which is what the post-schismatic Latin Church is trying to pander. If this is difficult to understand, I would suggest that you consult a dictionary.

Edited April 13, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[Guest Eremite]

ICXCNIKA,

I have no idea what you are talking about. Religion for the Jews? You're going to have to clarify your point.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]All your quotes deal with PRIMACY. NOT SUPREMACY. It does not prove that the Pope had universal jurisdiction over all the Christian world, which is what the post-schismatic Latin Church is trying to pander. If this is difficult to understand, I would suggest that you consult a dictionary. [/quote]

Ok. Let's review the witnesses I have provided.

[quote]For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of its preeminent authority..." (St. Irenaeus, Second Century)[/quote]

If every Church "should agree" with Rome, then that means Rome has supreme authority in the Church. St. Irenaeus doesn't say "every Church should consider what Rome says, but are free to do their own thing". No. He says it is "a matter of necessity" that every Church agrees with Rome.

[quote]"Although Bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others...Through them [the Bishops with greater responsibility] the care of the universal Church would converge on the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head." (Pope Leo the Great, Fifth Century)[/quote]

Here, Pope Leo says that there was a distinction of authority among the Apostles (not a distinction of honor), and goes on to say "NOTHING should ever be at odds with this head", the head being "the one See of Peter", that is, Rome. If nothing should ever be at odds with Rome, then that means Rome has supreme authority in the Church to decide things. Otherwise, there could be things at odds with it. But Leo admits of no such right.

[quote]"From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church. Thus, although among the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, it is really Peter who rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler" (Pope Leo the Great, Fifth Century)[/quote]

Note well that Pope Leo the Great says that Peter "rules" not only the nations, not only the Fathers of the Church, but Peter rules "over all the other Apostles". He "rules" them. This is a supremacy in jurisdiction, not a primacy of honor.

[quote]"Again, consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark also the great moderation of the other Apostles, how they concede the throne to him [Peter], and no longer dispute with each other....[Peter says, 'Men and bretheren...' in Acts 1:15-16]. Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, 'We are sufficient'. So far was [Peter] beyond all vainglory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fasion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed." (St. John Chrysostom)[/quote]

Here, St. John Chrysostom says that Peter had the authority to select a successor of Judas himself, the same authority that the Apostles had "collectively". The Apostolic (and Episcopal) colleges have supreme authority COLLECTIVELY. As St. John Chrysostom notes, however, Peter (and his successors in Rome) have this same authority in themselves. They have supreme authority.

[quote]"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world -- for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him." (St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Peter, Seventh Century)[/quote]

Here, St. Maximus indicates that the Bishop of Rome has "universal and SUPREME dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over ALL the holy Churches of God". He cannot be more explicit.

I also provided this website which records other Eastern witnessess to the supreme authority of Peter and his successors.

[url="http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm"]http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/eccl.../patriarchs.htm[/url]

I think I have provided more than enough evidence to support my case. Beyond what I have provided, you will have to see a published volume. Once more, I would reccommend "Upon This Rock" by Steve Ray.

As an aside, I will let this be my last post, because I don't want any animosity to develop between us. I have great respect for Eastern Orthodox Christians, and while I cannot concur with some of their beliefs, I rejoice in the closeness of doctrinal and spiritual unity that we do in fact share.

God bless.

Edited April 13, 2005 by Eremite