Pre-schism popes: 'universal rulers' of the Orthodox Church?

[Martin Paul]

Can the EO concede that the Roman Pope was once "universal ruler" in the Church? I dont mean "universal ruler" in the sense that RCers came to understand it in the high middle ages. I am referring to the phrase itself. I have counted around 20 times that it appears in the fathers, emperors, or various ecclesiastical writers prior to the pontificate of NicholasI. It is not monarchial. Nor does it necessitate universal jurisdiction. Think how the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed to be the Ecumenical ie Universal Patriarch for the East. Can the EO concede that the pope was once "universal ruler" in the pre-schism communal context?

[Peter Farrington]

No I can't concede that. There is lots of flowery language sometimes, especially when the Pope of Rome needed to be kept on board, but there was never any acceptance of the desire of the Pope of Rome to have a universal jurisdiction.

I think the question that should be asked is not 'is there language in the East which seems to recognise a universal jurisdiction?' but rather 'are there any examples of when such a universal jurisdiction was ever allowed to be exercised?'

I can think of very little at all in the way of actions which supports any such view.

Even in England, under St Theodore of Canterbury, who had been placed in the Archepiscopate of the English Church by the Pope of Rome, there is not one instance where he actually obeyed any command of the Pope. Rather he always took the Pope's comments as advice which in the end he could over-rule as Metropolitan of his own Church. And he usually did.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Anglican historians would not 'concede' this point, and I should be amazed if Orthodox ones did - Fr. Meyendorff's various writings on this seem to set forth the position that whilst paying due respect to the office of the bishop of Rome, there was never any recognition of its having any superior authority.

If one may be allowed to allude to Chalcedon here, it seems clear that the assembled bishops only agreed with Leo's Tome once it had been shown to be in accord with the teachings of St. Cyril.

It is perhaps a trifle on the ironic side that the greatest boost ever received to the Pope's claims should have been the Muslim conquest of the lands in which Christianity had originated. It is tempting, but fruitless, to speculate what would have happened had Constantinople not been conquered by the Ottomans in 1453, and there had still be a clear link between East and West at the time of Luther.


In Christ,

John

[Martin Paul]

I posted this same question on another board. Someone responded thus:


What exactly is meant by "universal ruler" here? You have explained what it does not mean, but what are the positive ideas/parts that provide some content for the title? The Patriarch of Constantinople has some abilities that other bishops do not have (in spite of the idea that he is theoretically equal to all other bishops in a collegial system), such as presiding over councils, settling disputes which cannot be settled at the local level, and even in rare occasions helping to resolve disputes in which the disputants have not directly petitioned him for help. Is this the type of thing you mean by "universal ruler..."

I replied:

Yup thats what I mean. I would add that the most usual implementation of this role was writing letters to enforce ecumenical councils, canons, local decisions ectetera. It is a pastoral role or ministry of oversight. The popes wrote hundreds of such directional letters to Eastern dignitaries. This was their "universal rule."

Perhaps the Church supplies some extraordinary "jurisdiction" from custom, as it does for patriarchs and metropolitans, that is used in particular circumstances. (The circumstances are what we have listed.) However, this is not real jurisdiction, since it is granted from the Church via custom to be used at certain times alone, and its sole purpose is to ensure administrative cohesiveness. Its true that in the original constitution of the Church each bishop is equal in power. (The preeminence of Peter which passed to those who succeeded to his chair in Rome was not jurisdictional power but mere honorific leadership.) But in practice the Church has the right to grant more power to bishops. The original leadership role that the bishop of Rome had was amplified when the Church was made to correspond to the structure of the Empire. Pre-Christian Eternal Rome was called "caput mundi" or head of the world. Likewise this title passed on to the Roman church. (The pope was in fact called universal "head" more than universal "ruler.") These terms were common parlance back then. The original meanings were quite different from how the high medievals interpreted them. It was also understood in ancient times that whoever is the first bishop, whether the metropolitan in his area or the patriarch in his area or the pope in his area, is de facto called "head" and "ruler." It is equivalent to our modern world "president."

In addition to the tasks that we listed above I would also like to add that, [I]in cases of necessity such as when patriarchs were not doing their job or when a patriarch became a heretic and no higher authority could take care of the situation, the pope could excommunicate people outside his own patriarchate. This should come as no surprise though since even regular patriachs could excommunicate other patriarchs. For instance Alexandria and Constantinople could issue mutual excommunications against each other. Likewise the pope could do the same. Indeed he was responsible for it. Whereas other patriarchs were not responsible in the same sense for other patriarchates. The pope's "universal rule" was to care for all the churches.

[Nicolaj]

I think you are wrong! The pope his rule have never ever been to care for the lot of churches. And neither has the Pope as being the patriarch of Rome, as equal to all the other patriarchs, been ever allowed to excommunicate another patriarch by his own!
In fact they tried that at different points throughout history with little result.
In Christ-Happy New Year-Nicolaj

[Martin Paul]

I think you are wrong! The pope his rule have never ever been to care for the lot of churches. And neither has the Pope as being the patriarch of Rome, as equal to all the other patriarchs, been ever allowed to excommunicate another patriarch by his own!

Lol. This is ridiculous. Photius did not think thus.

[Justin]

But didn't John Chrysostom interfere in a place not under his jurisdiction to excommunicate bishops?

[Peter Farrington]

Surely the Photian schism was exactly in instance of the Pope of Rome doing one thing and his actions NOT being accepted.

Likewise we have instances of various heretical and heterodox figures being in communion with the Pope of Rome, but NOT being accepted until the East had considered their cases themselves.

Peter

[Martin Paul]

But didn't John Chrysostom interfere in a place not under his jurisdiction to excommunicate bishops?

Exactly. The reason I said "Photius did not think thus" is that Photius excommunicated the Pope!!!

(PS side note - when I said that the pope could excommunicate people without a council I meant ecumenical council. Most of the time patriarchs would call a local council upon their attempt to excommunication someone. Just a clarification.)

[Nicolaj]

That is the thing I meant! As he received the excommunication letter by the pope of Rome, he sent him this nice well-known epistle back! It brings me every time to laugh while it is so clearly and good and written by a man who knows God is with him. And all that happened afterward affirmed that he was right!

In Christ-Nicolaj

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Having made my comment and voted, I had not thought again to post on this topic, but reading on the struggle of Athanasius against the Arians, I came across the following in a letter from Pope Julius to the Eastern Bishops following the Council of Rome in 340:

And why, concerning the Church of the Alexandrians was nothing written to us? Or are you unaware that this was the custom, to write first to us, and then for a decision to be determined from this place? ... For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, this I also signify to you.

I have to say that I have not come across such an unequivocal claim earlier than this, although there are some indications in the history of the early Egyptian Church that the bishops of Alexandria had looked to the Bishop of Rome for help against the heretical Valentinians in the 2nd century, so this may be a reflection of a local tradition, earlier evidence for which has not survived.

It is, I think, difficult to know quite how to read this. At first sight it looks like an unequivocal claim to primacy - but that first sight may be distorted by what came later. It may, as suggested here, be something less, or it may be Julius asserting what he thought should be the case.

Can anyone here throw any light on this one?


In Christ,

John

[Herman Blaydoe]

Actually I think it is quite straightforward. Claims HAVE been made, but that does NOT mean they were accepted. A Pope (St. Gregory the Great) actually gives the best rebuttal, in his letter to Patriarch John the Faster of Constantinople, decrying the use of the title Ecumenical Patriarch. A case is made that there is still a difference between a primacy of authority and a primacy of honor.

[John Charmley]

Dear Herman,

Your explanation was the one that occurred naturally to me, I must say, but it would be good to hear that others concur.

My difficulty with it is that it does looks as though the Bishops of Alexandria had looked to Rome before, during the Melitian troubles, for example, and certainly Athanasius relied upon Rome both to shelter him in exile, and to help him against the Arian bishops preferred by Constantinople. We see what look to me like echoes of this in the relationship that subsisted between Rome and Alexandria under Theophilius and St. Cyril.

But, as I suggest in my earlier post, this does not have to be read as a universal statement - it could equally well be a local tradition, which, later, was read in a way consonant with the claims Rome made.

I have always read it as you do, a 'primacy of honour', but was suddenly struck by reading the statement I quoted - and, given the wealth of knowledge available here (and the want of Patristics experts closer to home - my two most knowledgeable academic friends are experts on medieval history and both Catholic converts, so I know what they think!), I was hoping for enlightenment. But I see from the poll that you and I are in the majority - this is such an unfamiliar position for me to be in that I am obviously beginning to worry about it!

In Christ,

John


JOhn

[Kosta]

No bishop ever had the title of universal ruler. But the title od universal bishop goes to the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is what the word "ecumenical" means. Pope Gregory lobbied for the E.P. to drop the title since its not fitting for any bishop but the E.P. never did, still used to this day.

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We might want to take into account the work of the late, great, Professor Meyendorff, who, in his The Primacy of Peter, (SVSP, 1992) quotes St. Gregory Palamas as calling Peter the "foundation of the Church" (Triads, II, I, 38), and writes: "It is not difficult to present an abundance of such quotations. All Byzantine theologians, even after the conflict with Rome, speak of Peter in the same terms as Photius . . . without any attempt to attenuate the meaning of biblical texts . . . the Church . . . remains eternally founded on Peter."

But that does seem different from asserting that the Church recognised him as a 'universal ruler', does it not?

Of course, for nearly two millennia, Bishops of Rome have striven to gain acceptance for their interpretation of their role, an endeavour greatly aided first by the splits in the Eastern Church, and then by the Muslim conquests of the Holy Land, Egypt and finally Constantinople. But the nineteenth century decision (opposed by many Catholics, let us remember) to go for Papal Infallibility has, alas, erected another barrier between Christians.

For those wishing to read more on this, Fr. Meyendorff's [I]The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church 1071-1453 A.D is strongly recommended. For those wishing for something shorter and snappier - but full of Orthodox wisdom on this topic, there is an excellent piece by Fr. Thomas Hopko here http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php.

Enjoy!

In Christ,

John

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear all,

We have seen Pope Saint Gregory's strong words referenced in the past in other threads as well. The conclusion being that such a disposition is very much in opposition to Orthodox spiritual progression from an ascetical and theological perspective.

It is interesting to note that in Holy writ we may read;

"Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

We can also recall the forerunner John Baptist saying that Christ must increase and he must decrease.

The antithesis of those words are seen as titles are escalated in Rome. Vicar of Peter, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Vicar of Christ and the slow introduction of a new title that is difficult for me to even reference, "the Successor of Christ" that can sometimes be heard from those in the Papal tradition.

JUBILEE OF APOSTOLIC NUNCIOS AND
PAPAL REPRESENTATIVES
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
Friday, 15 September 2000

“When lived in this way, dear Nuncios, your ministry will clearly create the necessary bond between the particular and universal dimensions of the Church. By helping the Successor of Christ to tend Christ's flock, you help the particular Churches to grow and to develop. In this service you may often find yourselves facing problems, difficulties and tensions. I warmly thank you for the very valuable contribution of your experience, through which you combine sensitivity for the Churches and societies in which you work with fidelity to the inspiring guidelines of the action of the Holy See, in both the ecclesial and civil sectors.”

In Islam it is also said that Muhammad is “The Natural Successor to Christ”

In the Papal Church’s Vatican II documents and other documents we can hear and see false connections being established termed the three great monotheistic religions – Judaism, Islam and Christianity. As we know in truth, the spirit of Islam does not confess our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. From the spirit of Judaism we do not hear the fulfillment of all things in Christ, “Hear O Israel the Lord is one, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in essence consubstantial and undivided.


“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”

I also recall the words of Saint Paul regarding the spirit that does not confess our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.

Many things have been reduced in Rome expect the papacy. That once venerable see has removed much liturgically and in other areas.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren,

Surely the pope as the patriarch of Rome has a special place among the bishops but no more special as the patriarch of Russia or the Patriarch of Alexandria. The point is that Peter the Apostle died in Rome, at that time the most important place of the world. He layed his hands upon many man to make them priests during the time he came around preaching the gospel, non of them claimed the position of being the first although there sure have been some ordinated before those in Rome.
And the papal claim of being the successor of Christ is therefor in omnipresent in their understanding of the patriarch of Rome as they don't see the Holy Spirit as being the pawn which the Father gave to us during times until the Son returns! No they see themselves as the garant for the truth. Therfor also the dogma of infallibility, to give them the assurance they do right and all the others are wrong.

In Christ-Nicolaj

[John Charmley]

And the papal claim of being the successor of Christ is therefor in omnipresent in their understanding of the patriarch of Rome as they don't see the Holy Spirit as being the pawn which the Father gave to us during times until the Son returns! No they see themselves as the garant for the truth. Therfor also the dogma of infallibility, to give them the assurance they do right and all the others are wrong.

In Christ-Nicolaj

Dear Nicolaj,

Thank you for this, which seems to put things as most of us would understand them.

The simple fact that so many Bishops of Rome have had to make the case for their primacy so often shows that it has not been accepted always and everywhere by all Christians - which is, in itself, instructive.

Of course, from time to time various patriarchs have, being only human (and certainly not infallible) tried to ensure that the dignity of their See was upheld as they thought right and proper, and this has caused problems on occasion (there is a case for seeing what happened at Chalcedon at least partly in this light with regard to relations between Alexandria and Constantinople); but as far as I am aware, only the Bishop of Rome has pushed it as far as unilaterally excommunicating one of his fellow patriarchs and precipitating a schism.

As you say, because of St. Peter, and because St. Paul was also martyred in Rome, and because of Rome's importance, the ancient Church did recognise a primacy of honour attaching to Rome - but that was it. Of course, were the Pope to wish to go back to a more collegial way of doing things, and to abandon the 19th century ideas of Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, then we might get near the starting grid for a discussion about ways forward. There would still be massive ecclesiological differences, and the differences in theology, but it would be a move in the right direction. After all, the last Pope, like this one, was a figure whose Christian life commands respect, and the Roman Catholic Church is undoubtedly one of the main witnesses in this world to the Faith.

No harm dreaming!

In Christ,

John

[Raymond Maxwell Spiotta]

Surely the pope as the patriarch of Rome has a special place among the bishops but no more special as the patriarch of Russia or the Patriarch of Alexandria.

Dear Nicolaj, how can you seriously affirm this?

How is this statement consistent with, say this saying of St. John Cassian:

"That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God."
(Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276)

Or Philip, legate of Pope St. Coelestine I, at the Ephesian Council:

"There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever, lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place..."[4]
(NPNF, XIV:223) Session III

Or St. Peter Chysologus:

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope in the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the true faith to those who seek it. For we ... cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome." (St. Peter Chrysologus, Letters 25:2)

"Just as Peter received his name from the rock, because he was the first to deserve to establish the Church, by reason of his steadfastness of faith, so also Stephen was named from a crown...the first who deserved to bear witness with his blood. Let Peter hold his ancient primacy of the apostolic choir. Let him open to those who enter the kingdom of heaven. Let him bind the guilty with his power and absolve the penitent in kindness."
(Sermo 154, P.L. 52. 608.)

This is but a sampling, a random sampling culled together in a couple of minutes, of what the Holy Fathers had to say of Rome's special place, even among the Patriarchates.

I do not with any clarity see the rest of your argument, especially as concerns those priests which S. Peter ordained. Whatever you were attempting to get at there, it is clear that the case made for Rome's primacy by the Fathers of the Church is based upon Rome having been the final See of St. Peter, the Prince of Apostles.

At present I don't have a great desire for debate on this forum, and should I even desire it, trouble with the Moderators would likely ensue. I simply hope that you will be a little more diligent in seeking out the patristic concensus as regards the Roman primacy & the reasons therefor.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

At present I don't have a great desire for debate on this forum, and should I even desire it, trouble with the Moderators would likely ensue. I simply hope that you will be a little more diligent in seeking out the patristic concensus as regards the Roman primacy & the reasons therefor.

Well, my understanding is that these sorts of discussions have a place here since they revolve around the question of Orthodox ecclesiology.

My recent 'offical' objection as a co-moderator was when a debate between two non-Orthodox people began here on a subject which does not touch the purpose of this forum. I still do not think this is the place for that sort of discussion.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,


At present I don't have a great desire for debate on this forum, and should I even desire it, trouble with the Moderators would likely ensue. I simply hope that you will be a little more diligent in seeking out the patristic concensus as regards the Roman primacy & the reasons therefor.

The question of how the bishop of Rome is seen and understood to be in relation with the bishops of other sees and patriarchates is in fact a deeply patristic issue, given that it is a question with which many of the fathers were themselves concerned and involved. As such, it seems entirely within the scope of this forum, if it's kept in this focus -- and in fact it's been the object of many discussion threads here over the years.

INXC, Matthew

[Herman Blaydoe]

How is this statement consistent with, say this saying of St. John Cassian:Interesting that the Pope himself in his response is not entirely consistant with it:

The Bishop of Rome affirms that there was no other except a council; he expresses himself substantially to this effect in his letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople: "From the friendly letter that Germanus the priest and Cassianus the deacon have handed to me from you, I have gathered with an anxious mind the scene of woe you describe, and the afflictions and the trial that the faith has endured among you. This is an evil for which there is no other remedy than patience. . . . . I derive from the beginning of your affectionate epistle the consolation which I needed. . . . . . Innocent bishops are driven from their sees. John, our brother and colleague, and your bishop, has been the first to suffer from this violence, without having been heard, and without our knowing of what he is accused. . . . As regards the canons, we declare that only those made at the Council of Nicea should be recognized. . . . . Nevertheless, what remedy can be applied to so great an evil? There is no other than to convoke a council. . . . . Until we are able to obtain the convocation of a council, we cannot do better than to await from the will of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ the remedy of these evils. . . . . We are continually devising means to assemble a general council, where all dissensions may be set at rest at the command of God. Let us then wait, entrenched within the bulwark of patience." from The Papacy by Abbé GuettéeThe Pope himself says that he does NOT have the authority to grant St. John Chrysostom's petition and that a council is required!

Byzantine (dare I say Occidental culture in general?) modes of expression tend to be very hyperbolic and overstated ("flowery"). Judging or trying to interpret them by modern western standards is not wise and oftimes the cause of many misunderstandings.

[Kosta]

The bishop of Rome as all the patriarchates were simply the legal structure for the church.
These patriarchates owe their existence to the canons of the ecumenical councils.

Canon 6 of Nicea,
Canon 3 of Constantinople,
Jerusalem's elevation at the council of Ephesus & pronouncing the Church of Cyprus as autocephalous,
Canon 28 of Chalcedon.

Before Nicea the ancient patriarchates did not exist.

These canons make it clear that these patriarchates are political not spiritual in nature. A future ecumenical council can abolish the patriarchates altogether; It can change the order of their honor, or confer additional priveleges to one while taking away from another.

Whether an apostle found the church of a particular patriarchate or was martyred there, is completely irrelevant to the Fathers assembled at these councils. If anyone has any doubt on this simply read the canons, there clear and explicit.

Of course the Fathers seem to place more importance on these patriarchates than did the canons that created them, This is simply because they were also the heads of large jurisdictions and the various Fathers needed their alliance when a controversy arose. if Rome defended your theological point of view while another patriarchate was against it, you better believe you would exalt the one, and shower it with every virtue imagineable while speaking lowly of the other.

ALL BISHOPS ARE EQUAL! <------Thats Apostolic Tradition. NOT the ancient patriarchates

[Margaret Mueller]

Well stated Kosta! Thank you for harkening back to the First Ecumenical Council; it clarifies the agreement of the bishops who attended, as well as the conciliarity of their relationships, and the thoughtful humility with which they approached the task before them. It is this action of the Holy Spirit that history has ignored, forgotten or can't imagine. Satan has capitalized on ego for centuries...it is humility of the Holy Spirit -- to be of one heart and one mind -- that is required of all Christians

[M.C. Steenberg]

(Apologies to all: I feel as if I've written a fair number of 'Actually, no...' posts this evening, but here's another!)

Dear Kosta, you wrote:


Before Nicea the ancient patriarchates did not exist.

This simply isn't true. One of the very issues that Nicaea deliberated in its official proceedings was the nature of cross-jurisdictional questions between ecclesiastical boundaries. Several of the canons of the council deal with precisely such questions.

Irenaeus of Lyons, in book 3 of his On the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called, elaborates clearly defined local bodies in the Church defined by their ecclesial centres (e.g. in Rome, Antioch, etc.).

That these are not called 'patriarchates' is but a matter of terminology. The structures are clearly there.


ALL BISHOPS ARE EQUAL! <------Thats Apostolic Tradition. NOT the ancient patriarchates

This is a terribly false dichotomy, and I think fairly inaccurate. What do you mean by 'equal'? On an administrative and leadership level, this has never been true; neither in the centuries preceding Nicaea, nor indeed in the apostolic community encountered in the Acts of the Apostles.

INXC, Matthew

[Kosta]

Dear Steenberg,
I'm not disputing you, in fact you support what i wrote.

Churches may have had jurisdiction before Nicea, but of a different kind. The traditions each church taught were recieved from an Apostolic Mother Church, This mother church (ecclesial center) was located in a major city and the other churches were dependant upon her.

The jurisdictions of the patriarchates were written in stone at the councils and were given a primacy of honor which did not exist before. This primacy had nothing to do with apostolic prestige or because these were the churches that the apostles handed down their Traditions to. This ranking was based on the secular prestige of the city to the roman empire. You can look this up at any encyclopedia.
When ST. Eleni began building the first christian temples in Jerusalem and it became a center for pilgrimages ,the council of Ephesus elevated it to the fifth place. Jerusalem supplanted Caesarea as the christian center of Palestine as it was in the first century.

Constantinople was raised to the second place in 381a.d. because it became new rome and only because it was new rome. Jurisdiction was given to it at Chacedon.

In the council of Ephesus, the Fathers declared that Antioch could not annex Cyprus, and that Cyprus should remain as is (status quo) which is autocephalous. This is true to this day, and the patriarchates can have no jurisdictional rights over them, but before this, a patriatrchate (major ecclesial center) could make the attempt (as did antioch).

Canons have also been passed that bishops cannot overstep their boundaries and annex another bishops church. Before, this practise was common, the more churches a bishop controlled the bigger his political clout. So disciplinary canons were passed for this.

This structure (pentarchy)is administrative and political in nature, based on the geography of the roman empire, to keep order. Since the empires demise, more patriarchates have been added, Like moscow which now holds the fifth place in the primacy (of honor).

These are administrative centers, very true, not spiritual, thats why a future council can abolish them and create "new" centers.. This will become more apparent when the sad but inevitable extinction of the Constantinople patriarchate occurs in a couple of generations.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Steenberg,

It probably was an oversight but we should address Matthew as Dr or Matthew.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ken McRae]

Having made my comment and voted, I had not thought again to post on this
topic, but reading on the struggle of Athanasius against the Arians, I came
across the following in a letter from Pope Julius to the Eastern Bishops
following the Council of Rome in 340: ... I have to say that I have not come
across such an unequivocal claim earlier than this, although there are some
indications in the history of the early Egyptian Church that the bishops of
Alexandria had looked to the Bishop of Rome for help against the heretical
Valentinians in the 2nd century, so this may be a reflection of a local
tradition, earlier evidence for which has not survived.

It is, I think, difficult to know quite how to read this. At first sight it looks like
an unequivocal claim to primacy - but that first sight may be distorted by
what came later. It may, as suggested here, be something less, or it may be
Julius asserting what he thought should be the case.

Hi there! ~ Just curious what you make of the following?

Five Quotes from St. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258 A.D.)

1) "[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and *contends
that he holds the succession from Peter* ... etc." (ANF, Volume 5, pp. 394)

2) "Neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His
Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, claim
anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say
that *he held the primacy*, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by
novices and those lately come." (ANF, Volume 5, pp. 377)

3) "With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even
to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of
Peter and to *the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source*;
nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by
the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidity [i.e.
faithlessness] to have entrance [i.e. access]." (Letter to Pope Cornelius, 59 [
55], 14; Jurgens, FEF, vol. 1, 232)

4) "It is *on one man* that He builds the Church . . . 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." (The Unity of the
Catholic Church, 4; Jurgens, FEF, vol. 1, 220-221)

5) "It is manifest where and by whom remission of sins can be given; to wit,
that which is given in baptism. For first of all the Lord gave that power to
Peter, *upon whom He built the Church*, and whence He appointed and
showed the source of unity - the power, namely, that whatsoever he loosed
on earth should be loosed in heaven." (ANF, Volume 5, pp. 381)

[John Charmley]

Dear Ken,

Thank you for some interesting quotations.

I suspect that they go to illustrate that, as we know, there are two main views on this, with a number of nuanced positions in between.

We know it is possible to assemble quotations to 'prove' either of the main positions - i.e. that St. Peter was 'the rock' and that his successors as bishop of Rome have some kind of real primacy; and that this was not meant in the way the Roman Catholic Church has come to interpret it. This discussion has been going on for so long, and the positions are so entrenched, and the debris of history so weighty, that it would appear unlikely that anyone is going to have their mind changed.

Certainly there were Popes in the undivided Church who made far-reaching claims, but none of them included infallibility on matters of faith, and the usual Orthodox view is that the issue of 'primacy' was, likewise, added to the portfolio of Papal claims over the centuries. We know the evidence can be read that way because a highly respected and ancient Church uses it so; we know that opposite is so because a Church that would say it is even more ancient reads the evidence that way. That would lead to an ecclesiological argument upon which it is equally unlikely that a consensus would be found.

In the end we have, I suppose, to say to our dear Roman Catholic brethren that whilst we understand their view, we do not (as the poll here would seem to indicate) share it - and hope they will understand, as we do.

In Christ,

John

[Ken McRae]

I suspect that they go to illustrate that, as we know, there are two main
views on this, with a number of nuanced positions in between.

We know it is possible to assemble quotations to 'prove' either of the main
positions - i.e. that St. Peter was 'the rock' and that his successors as
bishop of Rome have some kind of real primacy; and that this was not meant
in the way the Roman Catholic Church has come to interpret it. This
discussion has been going on for so long, and the positions are so
entrenched, and the debris of history so weighty, that it would appear
unlikely that anyone is going to have their mind changed.

Certainly there were Popes in the undivided Church who made far-reaching
claims, but none of them included infallibility on matters of faith, and the
usual Orthodox view is that the issue of 'primacy' was, likewise, added to the
portfolio of Papal claims over the centuries. We know the evidence can be
read that way because a highly respected and ancient Church uses it so; we
know that opposite is so because a Church that would say it is even more
ancient reads the evidence that way. That would lead to an ecclesiological
argument upon which it is equally unlikely that a consensus would be found.

In the end we have, I suppose, to say to our dear Roman Catholic brethren
that whilst we understand their view, we do not (as the poll here would seem
to indicate) share it - and hope they will understand, as we do.

I must confess, John, that I hoped you would focus a little more intently on
discussing the precise meaning of St. Cyprian's words. Nevertheless, your
reply is appreciated. Thank you!

Allow me to clarify, though, why I posted those five quotes. In regard to the
words of Pope Julius, you wrote: "I have not come across such an
unequivocal claim earlier than this, although there are some indications in the
history of the early Egyptian Church that the bishops of Alexandria had
looked to the Bishop of Rome for help against the heretical Valentinians in the
2nd century, so this may be a reflection of a local tradition, earlier evidence
for which has not survived."

Now, when I read your above words, the first thing that came to my mind
was the words of St. Cyprian, which predate Pope Julius' by a century; and
of the five quotes provided, the third one actually came to my mind first,
which states the following:

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even
to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of
Peter and to *the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source*;
nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by
the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidity [i.e.
faithlessness] to have entrance [i.e. access]." (Letter to Pope Cornelius, 59 [
55], 14; Jurgens, FEF, vol. 1, 232)

The other four quotes were included, more-or-less, for their contextual
support, and for the light which they shed on the above passage; which is
certainly no less unequivocal in its claim(s) for the Roman Pontiff, and which
fully corroborate(s) Pope Julius' claim, which you quoted: "And why,
concerning the Church of the Alexandrians was nothing written to us? Or are
you unaware that this was the custom, to write first to us, and then for a
decision to be determined from this place? ... For what we have received
from the blessed Apostle Peter, this I also signify to you." Do not these
words of Pope Julius strike you as similar to the words of St. Cyprian, in
regard to their claim(s)?

Now, it is crystal clear from these words that Pope Julius claims this custom
was the "received" Apostolic Tradition, of his Predecessors, but you stated
that you doubted the truth of that, and speculated that he might be
merely "asserting what he thought should be the case;" and also that you
thought that the Alexandrian practice of looking to Rome for guidance was
merely a "local tradition, earlier evidence for which has not survived." In reply
to that, I say and submit that while St Cyprian was not from Alexandria, he
was from North Africa, and therefore his words actually qualify [imo] as the
"earlier evidence" of this "received" tradition which you claimed does not exist.
[N.B. This paragraph has been edited to clarify my reference to your claim about the
Alexandrian tradition(s).]

As clearly indicated, the above words of St. Cyprian are extracted from his
Letter to Pope Cornelius, and it cannot be justly argued that he is making
novel claims for the Roman Pontiffs; or claims which had never entered the
Mind of the Church, nor into the mind of any of the Roman Pontiffs, up to and
including Cornelius himself. But what exactly are the claims made by St.
Cyprian, in the above passage, to be sure?

1. There is One Apostolic Chair.
2. That Chair belongs to Peter.
3. Peter's Chair resides in Rome.
4. Therefore Rome is the Principal Church.
5. The Chair of Peter is the source of sacerdotal unity.
6. All jurisdictions appealed to that Chair for the resolution of disputes.
7. Schismatics, heretics, and blasphemers recognized and appealed to that Chair.
8. It is impossible for "faithlessness" to enter the Roman Church.
9. Rome's faith "was praised by the preaching Apostle."

These are the claims I feel St. Cyprian asserts in the above passage (third of
the Five Quotes), but if you disagree, please feel free to point out where you
think I have erred in judgment. In the First Quote, St. Cyprian tells us that
Pope Stephen boasted of his succession from St. Peter, by which I personally
understand him to be arguing that while Stephen held the "primacy", he
abused that authority. This is confirmed, I feel, in the Second Quote, where
St. Cyprian acknowledges St. Peter's "primacy", but argues that "reason"
prevailed in the dispute between Sts. Peter and Paul, as opposed to
haughtiness, pride, and rashness of temperment. In other words, St. Cyprian
argues clearly that papal "primacy" is a divine right, but also one that clearly
has limits, which Stephen transgressed (in his opinion, of course). Thus, the
dispute between Sts. Peter and Paul exemplifies or teaches a kind
of "regulatory" principle for the "reasonable" (i.e dispassionate) use and
moderate exercise of papal "primacy".

It seems to me that the dispute between Pope Anicetus and St. Polycarp,
(as told by St. Irenaeus,) regarding Lent and Pascha, exemplifies the way in
which St. Cyprian thought papal primacy should be humbly exercised. Pope
St. Clement's first century Epistle to the Corinthians represents another
classic example of the "dispassionate" exercise of papal primacy over an
Eastern jurisdiction.What is clear, though, from the combined historical
examples of Popes Clement, Anicetus, Stephen, and Cornelius, is that they all
believed it was their divine right to arbitrate and resolve disputes throughout
all jurisdictions of the One Church. It is in this light that I say Pope Julius was
not "asserting what he thought should be the case;" but what was, in fact,
the received apostolic tradition.

Something that has always bothered me, though, is that while post-schism
Popes may seem to claim more authority than their pre-schism predecessors,
it has always struck me as though post-schism Orthodox do not honor the
Ecumenical Patriarch in the same way that pre-schism Orthodox apparently
honored the pre-schism Roman Pontiff; nor give him the same degree of
power and authority to resolve disputes in all jurisdictions. Another problem
area for me, unless I've misunderstood, has been the Orthodox claim that
Rome only held primacy due to its being the capital or primary city of the old
Roman empire. If that is true, then I cannot see any just reason to continue
regarding the Greek Church as the principal Church within Orthodoxy today.
That place, it seems to me, should belong to either Russia or America!

However, I must confess that I am personally inclined to view Rome's "primacy"
as of divine origin, and not one that was the product of some "conciliar"
decree. I base my "opinion" partially upon the 382 AD Synod of Constantinople,
which declared the following:

"Though all the Catholic churches diffused throughout the world are but one
Bridal Chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman Church has been set before the
rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the Primacy by the voice of
Our Lord and Savior in the Gospel: 'Thou art Peter and upon this Rock ... shall
be loosed in heaven.' ... The first See of the Apostle Peter is therefore the
Roman Church, 'not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.' But the second
See was consecrated in Alexandria, in the name of blessed Peter, by his
disciple Mark the evangelist ... And the third See of the most blessed Peter is
at Antioch ... etc."

According to the above, Rome obtains its primacy by a divine right, and not
by some kind of "conciliar" decree. Now, it seems highly likely to me the
Three Holy Hierarchs were present at this Synod, and perhaps St. Gregory of
Nyssa as well. And it is beyond question that St. Cyprian believes papal
"primacy" was a divine right, and that is abundantly clear from the Fourth and
Fifth Quotes. This, he argues, is the clear implication of the act of Christ in
giving St. Peter the power of "the keys" first, before the others. That Rome
held the "primacy" is clear from the words of the Three Holy Hierarchs
themselves, as appears from the following:

St. Gregory the Theologian

"Regarding the faith which they uphold, the ancient Rome has kept a straight
course from of old, and still does so, uniting the whole West by sound
teaching, as is just, since she presides over all and guards the universal
divine harmony."( In 'Carmen de Vita Sua ' A.D. 382)

St. Basil the Great

"It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome,
begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the
way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical
decree, to advise him to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by
choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey,--suitable, too,
by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us
here; able to speak with proper reserve and appropriateness, and thoroughly
well acquainted with all that has been effected after Ariminum to undo the
violent measures adopted there." ( See Epistle 69 - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202069.htm )

St. John Chrysostom

"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on
these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the
mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also
went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And
withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the
denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the
brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what
had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren, ... and the
third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets
the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did
James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He
appointed this man (St. Peter) Teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole
world." ( Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii )

[Ken McRae]

St. Basil the Great: "It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to
the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there
are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a
general synodical decree, to advise him to exercise his own personal
authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of
a journey,--suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct
the unruly among us here; able to speak with proper reserve and
appropriateness, and thoroughly well acquainted with all that has been
effected after Ariminum to undo the violent measures adopted there." ( See
Epistle 69 - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202069.htm )

In a letter to Pope Damasus I (366-384 AD), asking him to arbitrate between
the 4th century Turkish churches, St. Basil made the following statement:

"We are in no wise asking anything new, but what was customary with
blessed and religious men of former times, and especially with yourself. For
we know, by tradition of our fathers . . . that [Pope] Dionysius (259-269 AD),
that most blessed Bishop, while he was eminent among you for orthodoxy and
other virtues, sent letters of visitation to our Church at Caesarea, and of
consolation to our fathers, with ransomers of our brethren from captivity."

(Cited in Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,
1845 [Revised 1878], Part 1, Ch. 4, Cec. 3, No. 12 )

[John Charmley]

Dear Ken,

We are all in your debt for some good quotations and challenging questions; I am particularly grateful for the St. Cyprian quotation you highlight in your last post, which, as you say, antedates Pope Julius.

I suspect we need to be careful about reading our own concerns back into these quotations though. I think there are few who would deny that a primacy of honour was accorded to the Roman patriarch in the ancient Church, and it seems to me that one can read St. Cyprian's comments in this way without their meaning what a modern Roman Catholic might take them to mean. 'Primacy' is a word capable of a number of interpretations, and, as we know, it has received them.

St. Cyprian's words are, indeed, interesting, and do seem to go further than some other Fathers in the direction you indicated. I quite agree with most of your formulation:


Something that has always bothered me, though, is that while post-schism
Popes may seem to claim more authority than their pre-schism predecessors,
it has always struck me as though post-schism Orthodox do not honor the
Ecumenical Patriarch in the same way that pre-schism Orthodox apparently
honored the pre-schism Roman Pontiff; nor give him the same degree of
power and authority to resolve disputes in all jurisdictions. Another problem
area for me, unless I've misunderstood, has been the Orthodox claim that
Rome only held primacy due to its being the capital or primary city of the old
Roman empire. If that is true, then I cannot see any just reason to continue
regarding the Greek Church as the principal Church within Orthodoxy today.
That place, it seems to me, should belong to either Russia or America!
On the last part of this, however, as an Oriental Orthodox, my opinion is not worth a hill of beans.

There are, however, many examples in the early of Church which suggest that whilst some Roman pontiffs made a claim to exercise jurisdiction elsewhere, many of their fellow patriarchs did not accept this. Indeed, it sometimes seems to me that this plaintive cry for jurisdictional authority has brought the Church so much evil that one sometimes wonders at its being pursued with such passion; if it is true that 'by their fruits shall ye know them', there would seem to me grounds for wondering whether such a claim were really 'of God'?

Certainly the circumstances of the early Church made any claim to universal jurisdiction impossible to enforce, even for those who harboured it; and there is much evidence to suggest that whilst a primacy of honour was conceded, that was, for most of the time and in most places, it.

The other patristic quotations you helpfully cite seem to me open to such a reading; i.e. that Rome was looked to in cases of uncertainty, and that it was accorded a place of special honour. They could, however, have the stronger reading you suggest, which is where we have to come back to the wider picture and the broader tradition of the Orthodox Church, which recognises a primacy of honour, and no more.

That seems to be the living tradition and consensus of the Church, which suggests that the softer reading I have suggested for the passages is the consensual one - for Orthodox folk, that is!

However, your post reminds us of things we sometimes forget, and for those of us who look forward to true ecumenical union (not syncretism), it carries seeds of hope.

In Christ,

John

[Kieran P.]

Indeed, it sometimes seems to me that this plaintive cry for jurisdictional authority has brought the Church so much evil that one sometimes wonders at its being pursued with such passion; if it is true that 'by their fruits shall ye know them', there would seem to me grounds for wondering whether such a claim were really 'of God'?




Hiya friend John,

I hope you're keeping well and experiencing a grace-filled Lent. I've noted your ecumenical posts with great appreciation for your wisdom and patience.

I wonder (with regards to what you've said above) could we say that 'the claim' itself may not be the only source of "so much evil" but that perhaps if both Churches recognised the primacy of Rome as it was before the schism there would be less source for contention? I believe we are guilty of resisting God's will and nationalism has played a role in this.

A lack of charity on both sides is the cause perhaps of imbalance in Christianity and the true source for evil to enter. It'll take an action of the Holy Spirit to sort it all out, which is fine by me! I believe He's working on it even as we speak!

God bless us all...

[John Charmley]

Dear Kieran,


A lack of charity on both sides is the cause perhaps of imbalance in Christianity and the true source for evil to enter. It'll take an action of the Holy Spirit to sort it all out, which is fine by me! I believe He's working on it even as we speak!

Indeed, and we must leave ourselves open to His operation; but as He knows, humankind sometimes has stiff necks, and pride and history run deep; but as history runs on, so other currents become apparent.

Lent is a good time to consider such themes, since we are in penitential mood - and He knows we have much about which to be penitent. If we wanted a better example of how our true nature has been disfigured by the Fall, we could hardly find a better one than that when He taught love and peace, we have so often managed to interpret that as first requiring hate and conflict. Of the rights and the wrongs on both sides there is no end in the telling; but He wills us to be one, and He will accomplish it, as He wants.

My first Lent as an Orthodox is proving a blessing beyond the hoping; I hope yours is going well too.

In Christ,

John

[Kieran P.]

Hiya John,


My first Lent as an Orthodox is proving a blessing beyond the hoping; I hope yours is going well too.

To be honest, I'm besieged with temptations, but trying to get through them. Your prayers would be appreciated. I've been reading some good works by the saints to boost my resistence levels!

God bless - and thanks for your reply...

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Hiya John,



To be honest, I'm besieged with temptations, but trying to get through them. Your prayers would be appreciated. I've been reading some good works by the saints to boost my resistence levels!

God bless - and thanks for your reply...


At the same time though this is the second or third time this post has unaccountably appeared as I review the day's posts. God works in mysterious ways.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

At the same time though this is the second or third time this post has unaccountably appeared as I review the day's posts. God works in mysterious ways.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

This makes number four.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

This makes number four.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Okay, I admit it, I was trying to cast a spell to help Anthony's football team but it seems to have landed on this thread!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Okay, I admit it, I was trying to cast a spell to help Anthony's football team but it seems to have landed on this thread!

For the past week or so the Forum has been acting in a very buggy way on my PC.

Must be invisible Jesuits.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John King]

Dear Raymond,

You would find some of the lectures by Fr John Romanides most interesting (try Google, as he is well indexed). He says, for instance, that the the Roman Church is the 'Frankish Catholic Church' whereas the term 'Roman Catholic Church' is properly attributable to Contantinople for sound historical reasons.

[Mina Mounir]

hi ,
I'd like to recommend that book : The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church
http://www.amazon.com/Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology-Church/dp/0881411256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199456089&sr=1-1
it is edited by fr.Meyendorff , actually , it is a collection of Orthodox Articles for famous names like fr.Schmemann of blessed memory.
I had a long discussion with a roman catholic friend and brother , his name is Mark Bonocore...
I think the conclusion of our dialogue was about the authority of canons of ecumenical councils ... Rome still doesn't easily accept the third and 28th canons of Contantinople 381 and chalcedon 451 ... and the reason was that the Orthodox view of old Rome's primacy is based on its position as the capital of Roman Empire... and that st.Peter had a primacy not a suprimacy.
on the other hand , Mark sees it based on a doctrinal (Mystical ) base , he sees that the bishop of rome has a special grace to take this position ... and that's why -by the way - they cannot recognize a primacy for constantinople over Alexandria which Mark -as they see- the disciple of Peter was its Bishop.

but we had agreed on a very important point ... the primacy is not a prestige , it is a responsibility...
I don't know if this is a correct conclusion or no ... but any way we still obey the canons of ecumenical councils , and I think they should too.
thanks
in ICXC
Mina

[Anthony]

Okay, I admit it, I was trying to cast a spell to help Anthony's football team but it seems to have landed on this thread!

For the past week or so the Forum has been acting in a very buggy way on my PC.

Must be invisible Jesuits.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Mine too. Come to that, so has my football team.

[Matthew Namee]

I can recommend the book The Papacy by Abbe Guettee (Fr. Vladimir). Guettee was a distinguished French Jesuit priest and historian until his conversion to Orthodoxy in the late 1860s. His book refutes a whole range of papal claims, including the claim that the Roman Popes had been "universal rulers" in the early centuries of Church history. The original text has been digitized on Google Books and may be found here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VcEOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA252&dq=abbe+guettee+papacy

[Albert Valdez]

Can I revive this thread and participate? I have statements from Orthodox Fathers that can shed much light on this subject. In stead of asking what we think, let's look at what the Fathers thought.

[Albert Valdez]

I can recommend the book The Papacy by Abbe Guettee (Fr. Vladimir). Guettee was a distinguished French Jesuit priest and historian until his conversion to Orthodoxy in the late 1860s. His book refutes a whole range of papal claims, including the claim that the Roman Popes had been "universal rulers" in the early centuries of Church history. The original text has been digitized on Google Books and may be found here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VcEOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA252&dq=abbe+guettee+papacy

Guetee supressed a lot of information. Orestos Brownson wrote a review of that book destroying it's pretentions. This link also shows how Gueetee twisted things regarding Pope Saint Leo [the Great].

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/guettee.html

[Herman Blaydoe]

It is obvious you are not here to dialog but merely debate and proselytize. There are plenty of other places to do that.

I don't see the point.

[David Stark]

In other Orthodox forums whenever I have quoted our own Orthodox saints and Fathers, I got banned. I am not interested in my own opinions, but in the opinions of the Fathers. I think we should listen to Saint Theodore the Studite.

Saint Theodore to Pope Paschal I:

"[The iconoclasts] have separated themselves from the body of Christ, and from the chief throne in which Christ placed the keys of faith: against which the gates of hell, namely the mouths of heretics, have not prevailed up to now, nor shall they ever prevail, according to the promise of him who does not lie." [PG 99:128].

[Carlos Antonio Palad]

There are hundreds of patristic quotations that have been amassed
by Catholic apologists in support of the papal primacy and there doesn't seem to be any effort on the part of Orthodox theologians to systematically answer these or explain these in a way consonant with current Orthodox beliefs.

Instead of all these ecumenical dialogues that accomplish little if anything, would it not be better for an international committee of Catholic and Orthodox theologians to sit down and go with a fine comb through each and every Patristic quotation that apparently supports the Papal Primacy (of Jurisdiction) and Infallibility? That way, each quote can be placed in context, explained properly as to its exact meaning, and its real implications determined, without any exaggerations or underestimations getting in the way of understanding it properly.

[David Stark]

I totally agree. They need to get together and work on the material.

St. Theodore the Studite wrote to Pope Leo III[795-816]:


...O arch-shepherd of the church... save us now... For if they, usurping an authority which does not belong to them, have dared to convene a heretical council, whereas those who follow ancient custom do not even have the right of convening an orthodox one without your knowledge, it seems absolutely necessary, we dare to say to you, that your divine primacy should call together a lawful council, so that the Catholic dogma may drive out heresy and that your primacy may neither be anathematized by these new voices lacking authority...

It is in order to obey your divine authority as chief pastor that we have set forth these things as it befitted our nothingness... [PG 99: 1017-21]

St. Theodore wrote to Pope Paschal[817-824]:


... O apostolic head, divinely established shepherd of Christ’s sheep, doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, rock of the faith on which the Catholic Church has been built. For you are Peter-- you are the successor of Peter, whose throne you grace and direct... To you did Christ our God say, "When you have been converted, strengthen your brethren." Now is the time and the place: help us, you who have been established by God for that purpose... [PG 99: 1152-3]

[David Stark]

SAINT MAXIMOS THE CONFESSOR:

".....How much more is this the case with the Church and clergy of Rome, which from of old up to this time, as the eldest of all the churches under the sun, has the pre-eminence over all.. Having undoubtedly obtained this canonically, both from the councils and from the apostles as well as from their supreme principality, because of the eminence of her pontificate she is not bound to produce any writings of synodical letters, just as in these matters all are subject to her, in accordance with priestly law.........[u]as firm ministers of the truly solid and immovable rock, that is, the greatest apostolic church....." [Mansi X, 677-8].


Saint Maximus also stated:

"....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].

Now, if I get banned for quoting these Orthodox fathers, please be advised you are not banning me, you are banning SS Theodore and Maximos. I gave no interpretation of them. I just quoted their words. Thank you.

Christos Anesti!

[Olga]

There are hundreds of patristic quotations that have been amassed
by Catholic apologists in support of the papal primacy and there doesn't seem to be any effort on the part of Orthodox theologians to systematically answer these or explain these in a way consonant with current Orthodox beliefs.


On the contrary, Carlos. The Orthodox have for centuries made their position on papal primacy, and other differences in doctrine, quite clear to the non-Orthodox. As for "current Orthodox beliefs", the Orthodox Church's beliefs and doctrines do not change. Other Christian denominations have subtracted from (such as the concept of sola scriptura), or added to (such as the filioque), the Apostolic faith. Not so the Orthodox.

Br David

Councils of theologians are all very well and honourable in intent, but there are two simple and very accessible sources of doctrine which are consistent across the whole Orthodox world: iconography, and liturgical texts. The Orthodox Church regards Apostles Peter and Paul as the pre-eminent apostles, not just Peter. This is abundantly clear in both iconography, and in the text for the vigil of Sts Peter and Paul. Both are held in equal regard, hence the joint feast-day. The joint commemoration has a purpose: to remove any notions of supremacy. Another example of this is the feast of the Three Hierarchs, instituted to show the Church's equal regard for Sts Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian.

The feast for Sts Peter and Paul dates back to no later than the mid-8thC, given that the canon at Matins was written by St John of Damascus, and other hymns by contemporaries, including St Andrew of Crete.

Individual fathers may contradict each other, but the liturgical texts represent the distillation of the teachings of the Church for any feast. It is what the whole Orthodox Church espouses and proclaims, irrespective of geographic location or jurisdiction. It is the same with iconography. Individual icons of Apostle Peter exist in great numbers, but there is no indication at all that he is pre-eminent over all the others. In icons of the assembly of the Twelve Apostles, Peter and Paul are in the foreground, often jointly holding a model of a church building, a motif also used in icons of saints regarded as "equals to the Apostles", such as the enlightener-saints e.g. Sts Vladimir and Olga of Kiev, Nina of Georgia, Olaf of Norway, etc. Apostle Andrew is shown standing behind Peter and Paul, but still in a position of prominence, as he was the first to be chosen by Christ to be a disciple. All of this is consistent with Orthodox teaching.

I am happy to provide the text of the vigil to Apostles Peter and Paul to anyone who is interested.

[Andreas Moran]

each quote can be placed in context

Carlos made an important point here. St Maximos the Confessor and Pope Martin I were battling against Monotheletism in the East, and St Theodore the Studite and the West were battling against Iconoclasm in the East. Many Orthodox Fathers do speak of the pope as having some sort of primacy of love, but I suppose there are no Orthodox Fathers from the 10th century onwards who can be called in aid of papal primacy. As the Ravenna Document (October 2007) says, there is a difference between agreeing that, at the universal level as at the local level, '[p]rimacy . . . is a practice firmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church' and agreeing upon 'the manner in which it is to be exercised' at the universal level (para. 43). That paragraph opens with this: 'Primacy and conciliarity are interdependent. That is why primacy . . . must always be considered in the context of conciliarity, and conciliarity likewise in the context of primacy'. Though the whole statement seems to me to suffer from circularity, its core meaning may have some signficance.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Councils of theologians are all very well and honourable in intent, but there are two simple and very accessible sources of doctrine which are consistent across the whole Orthodox world: iconography, and liturgical texts. The Orthodox Church regards Apostles Peter and Paul as the pre-eminent apostles, not just Peter. This is abundantly clear in both iconography, and in the text for the vigil of Sts Peter and Paul. Both are held in equal regard, hence the joint feast-day. The joint commemoration has a purpose: to remove any notions of supremacy. Another example of this is the feast of the Three Hierarchs, instituted to show the Church's equal regard for Sts Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian.

The feast for Sts Peter and Paul dates back to no later than the mid-8thC, given that the canon at Matins was written by St John of Damascus, and other hymns by contemporaries, including St Andrew of Crete.

Individual fathers may contradict each other, but the liturgical texts represent the distillation of the teachings of the Church for any feast. It is what the whole Orthodox Church espouses and proclaims, irrespective of geographic location or jurisdiction. It is the same with iconography. Individual icons of Apostle Peter exist in great numbers, but there is no indication at all that he is pre-eminent over all the others. In icons of the assembly of the Twelve Apostles, Peter and Paul are in the foreground, often jointly holding a model of a church building, a motif also used in icons of saints regarded as "equals to the Apostles", such as the enlightener-saints. Apostle Andrew is shown standing behind these two, but still in a position of prominence, as he was the first to be chosen by Christ to be a disciple. All of this is consistent with Orthodox teaching.

I think this is a very important point which cannot be over emphasized. Infallibility has never been required of our bishops or even of our saints. Different fathers have indeed had different opinions, but the Faith is unerringly presented in our worship. As Olga says, it is the distillation of our teachings. We pray as we believe and we believe as we pray, keeping our eyes on Christ we walk on the stormy seas of controversy that roil around us. And of course holy icons are prayers and teachings set to pictures. The accepted iconography of the Church is the accepted theology of the Church! As we prepare to fire broadsides of "canons" and boarding parties of "quotes from the Fathers", let us indeed be aware of context and of the truely accepted teachings of the Church as exemplified and amplified by how we worship and pray and may the Peace that surpasses all understanding be with all who love and follow Christ.

[Andreas Moran]

The accepted iconography of the Church is the accepted theology of the Church!

Olga also said that the liturgical texts of the Church also express her theology, and that is most important.


let us indeed be aware of context and of the truely accepted teachings of the Church as exemplified and amplified by how we worship and pray

Indeed!


On a personal note, I'm grateful to Olga and Herman for their posts.

[Matthew Namee]

Quotations from the Fathers are fine and good, but as has already been said, they must be read in context. Honorific titles and flattering descriptions were heaped upon the Roman popes (as well as other bishops at other times), but this does not mean that we can infer an ecclesiological principle from them. It has always been my understanding that Rome held a high position because

1) she was an "elder church,"
2) she was the capital city, and
3) her bishops were frequently, in the early years of the Church, the most zealous defenders of the Orthodox faith.

From this I take three corresponding ecclesiological principles:

1) Churches with long histories should be respected, just as old people should be respected,
2) Churches in prominent, important cities should hold high positions which correspond to their secular significance, and
3) those bishops who are the most Christ-like, most Orthodox in faith, and most loving in leadership should be respected as authorities.

You can't really make any of these principles into strict dogmas; as with much in Orthodoxy, they can only be general guidelines. Today we Orthodox face an anachronistic situation, and we must deal with it by applying principles along these lines. In terms of Rome, if she has left the path of the Orthodox faith, the point is moot. Even if that is set aside, we must consider what "primacy" means in the context of the Church. This seems to be the greatest point of dispute.

As for the broad claims of Rome, I have always wondered how such claims could be made. Three things must be satisfied for them to be remotely true:

1) Christ must have granted to Peter authority over all the apostles.
2) The bishops of Rome must be the successors -- and the only successors -- of Peter.
3) The "successors" of Peter must somehow inherit his authority.

For the Roman claims to be true, all three of these conditions must be met. I don't see that any of them are met with anything approaching confidence. I've read the various patristic quotes which ostensibly support Roman supremacy, but I don't see it.

[Herman Blaydoe]

St. Theodore the Studite was not a patriarch, nor even a bishop. He was a respected abbot, but I don't see how this makes him THE spokesperson for the Church on the subject. From the official website of the Greek Archdiocese of Amerca:


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. (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp)

[David Stark]

Br David

.... The Orthodox Church regards Apostles Peter and Paul as the pre-eminent apostles, not just Peter.

I've read the sources and see no evidence of anyone putting Paul on the same level of Peter.


This is abundantly clear in both iconography, and in the text for the vigil of Sts Peter and Paul. Both are held in equal regard, hence the joint feast-day. The joint commemoration has a purpose: to remove any notions of supremacy. Another example of this is the feast of the Three Hierarchs, instituted to show the Church's equal regard for Sts Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian.

I tell you what, let's hear from the "Golden Mouth" himself.

There is no doubt to anyone on a schoarly level, that the Fathers believed Peter was the chief [coryphaeus] of the apostles, and the foundation of the Church itself.


SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOMOS ON THE PRIMACY OF PETER:

Note: the term "corypheaus" means "chief" or foremost man."

"And why, then, passing by the others, does He speak with (Peter) about these things? [John 21, 15] He was chosen one of the apostles, and mouth of the disciples. and leader [koruphe] of the choir. This is also why Paul once went up to see him. rather than the others. [Gal. 1, 18] and to show him that he ought to have confidence, as if the denial were done away with, He entrusts him with the presidency of the brethren...And He does not bring foward the denial, or reproaches him for for what happened, but says "if you love me, preside over the brethren." ...A third time He commands the same thing, showing how greatly He honors the presidency over His own sheep... And if anyone were to say, "How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?" I would answer that He ordained this man [Peter] teacher, not of that throne, but of the world." [Hom. 88in Jn. PG 59:478-80].

"Peter, the coryphaeus of the choir, mouth of all the apostles, head of that tribe, prostates of the whole world, foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ, for He says: "Peter, lovest thou me more than these?" [On 2Tim. 3, 1. PG 56, 277].

"Peter, the summit [koruphe] of the apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying: "Blessed art thou..." This very Peter--and when I say ’Peter I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great apostle, first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed --he committed no little offence but an exceedingly great one, denying the Master..." [Hom. 3 de Eleemos. PG 49:298].

"...Peter, the foundation of the Church, vehement lover of Christ...who traversed the universe, lay down his net into the sea, and caught the entire world..." [Vidi Dominum, Hom. IV, 3. PG 56: 123].

"...the holy coryphaeus of the blessed choir, the lover of Christ...the ardent disciple, who was entrused with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation..." [Hom. VI on Acts. PG 60: 56].

"Peter, the coryphaeus of the choir of the apostles, mouth of the disciples, pillar of the church, bulwark of the faith, foundation of the confession, a fisherman of the world...the first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the apostles..." [Hom. de decem mille tal. 3; ad eos qui scandal. sunt 17].

Saint John Chrysostom depicts Peter as exercising the apostolic primacy at the very beginning of the Church, after Pentecost:

"In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples." [Acts I, 15]. Both as a fervent one, and as entrusted by Christ with the flock... [Peter] is first to act with authority in the matter, as the one entrusted with them all, for to him Christ said: "And thou, being converted, strenghten thy brethren." [Hom. 3 in Acts. PG 60: 33, 37].

"Peter, the foundation, the pillar...God allowed him to fall, because He was going to make him ruler [arxonta] of the entire world so that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who fall in the future. And that what I have said is no conjecture, listen to Christ Himself saying: "Simon, Simon..." [Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5. PG 63: 465].

"...[when] that coryphaeus Peter, after a thousand wonders and signs and so much warning and consel [had fallen’, He [Christ] overlooked it and established him first of the apostles..." [In Ps. 129. PG 55: 375].

"Why did He shed His blood? In order that He might gain possession of those sheep He entrusted to Peter and those who came after him." [De Sacerdotio II, 1/ PG 48: 632].

There is no doubt that as far as Saint John Chrysostom was concerned, Peter held the primacy over the other apostles. This language is never used of our beloved Saint Paul.

Christos anesti!

[Herman Blaydoe]

An interesting comment on the subject is made on the Orthodox wiki:


An interesting point to note in the wider development of the papacy is the fact that Innocent's protests availed nothing, demonstrating the lack of influence the bishops of Rome held in the East at this time. (http://orthodoxwiki.org/John_Chrysostom)

[Olga]

I've read the sources and see no evidence of anyone putting Paul on the same level of Peter.

Br David

Perhaps you are not familiar with the liturgical texts for the feast of Apostles Peter and Paul. With no disrespect whatsoever intended for St John Chrysostom or Apostle Peter, I nevertheless return to the principle of liturgical integrity, universality and consistency, and its proclamation of Orthodox doctrine.

Below are selections from the Vigil of Apostles Peter and Paul. I apologise for the length of this post, however I felt that it would be more beneficial to quote extensively, to provide some semblance of fullness and “context”. Apart from one asterisked comment of mine, the text is quite clear as to how the whole Orthodox Church regards these saints. There is a distinct complementarity between verses for each apostle:

From Vespers:

At “Lord, I have cried”:

With what beauties of hymnody should we sing the praise of Peter and Paul? The wings of the knowledge of God, who flew through the ends of the earth and were lifted up high to heaven; the hands of the Gospel of grace, the feet of the truth of the proclamation, the rivers of wisdom, the arms of the Cross, through which He has cast down the arrogance of demons, Christ our God, who has great mercy.

With what spiritual songs should we praise Peter and Paul? The sharp mouths of the dread sword of the Spirit that slaughter godlessness; the radiant ornaments of Rome; the delights of the whole inhabited world; the reasoning tablets, written by God, of the New Testament, which in Zion Christ proclaimed, who has great mercy.

At the Litia:

Come then today with fervour, acceptable sacrifice of the faithful; as we stand together in choir, let us garland with fitting songs Peter and Paul, the chosen weavers of grace; because they sowed the word unstintingly for all and enriched them with the gift of the Spirit; and being branches of the true vine, they have brought to perfection for us the ripe grape cluster, making our hearts glad. To them let us cry out, with faces unveiled and with pure consciences, as we say: Hail, guides of the unreasoning and servants of those with reason. Hail, fair chosen members of the Maker and Guardian of all. Hail, protectors of the good and persecutors of the deceitful. Let us implore them to ever entreat the Creator and Teacher to give the world stable peace and our souls His great mercy.

Let us, the whole world, praise as its champions the Disciples of Christ and foundations of the Church, the true pillars and bases, and inspired heralds of the doctrines and sufferings of Christ, the Princes, Peter and Paul. For they passed through the whole breadth of the earth as with a plough, and sowed the faith, and they made the knowledge of God well up for all, showing forth the understanding of the Trinity. O Peter, rock and foundation, and Paul, vessel of choice; the yoked oxen of Christ drew nations, cities and islands to knowledge of God. While they have brought Hebrews again to Christ and intercede that our souls may be saved.

Peter, Prince of the glorious Apostles, the rock of the faith, and inspired Paul, the preacher and beacon of the holy Churches, as you stand before the throne of God, intercede with Christ on our behalf.

Paul, mouth of the Lord, foundation of doctrines, once the persecutor of Jesus my Saviour, but now become first-throned of the Apostles, blessed one; therefore you saw things ineffable, O wise one, when you ascended to the third heaven, and you cried: Come with me, and let us not be deprived of the blessings.

The citizens of the Jerusalem on high, the rock of the faith, the preacher of the Church of Christ, the pair of the Trinity, the fishers of the world, leaving behind today the things on earth, have journeyed in truth to God, and they implore Him with boldness that our souls may be saved.

As the wisdom of God, the co-eternal Word of the Father, foretold in the Gospel, you are the fruitful branches, all-praised Apostles; you bear on your shoots the ripe and lovely grape cluster, which we faithful eat and experience a taste which brings delight. Peter, rock of the faith, and Paul, boast of the inhabited world, establish the flock which you have gained by your teachings.

At the Apostikha:

Who will recount your chains city by city and your afflictions, glorious Apostle Paul? The toils, the pains, the vigils, the sufferings from hunger and thirst, from cold and nakedness, the basket, the beatings, the stonings, the journeying, the deep, the shipwrecks? You became a spectacle to Angels and to humans. You endured all things in Christ who gave you power, that you might gain the world for Christ Jesus, your Lord. And so we beseech you, as we faithfully celebrate your memory, intercede without ceasing that our souls may be saved.

Verse: Their sound has gone out into all the earth; and their words to the ends of the world.

Who will recount your chains city by city and your afflictions, glorious Apostle Paul? Or who will set down the struggles and the toils, by which you toiled in the Gospel of Christ, that you might gain all people and bring the Church to Christ? But ask that she may keep safe your fair confession until her last breath, O Paul, Apostle and teacher of the Churches.

Verse: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands.

Let us praise Peter and Paul, the great beacons of the Church; for they shone more brightly than the sun in the firmament of the faith, and with the rays of the proclamation they brought the nations from ignorance to the knowledge of God. The one was nailed to a cross and so found the path to heaven, where he was handed the keys of the kingdom by Christ; while the other was beheaded by the sword and so departed to the Saviour and is fittingly called blessed. Both denounced Israel for stretching out his hands unjustly against the Lord Himself. And so at their prayers, Christ our God, cast down those who are against us, and strengthen the Orthodox faith, as You love mankind.

A joyous feast has shone out today on the ends of the earth, the all-honoured memorial of the wisest Apostles and their princes, Peter and Paul; and so Rome dances and rejoices. Let us also, brethren, celebrate in songs and psalms this all-revered day, as we cry out to them: Hail, Peter, Apostle and true friend of your teacher, Christ our God. Hail, Paul, well-loved, herald of the faith and teacher of the inhabited world. Holy pair, chosen by God, as you have boldness, implore Christ God that our souls may be saved.

Troparion of the Feast:

First-throned of the Apostles and teachers of the inhabited world, intercede with the Master of all things to give peace to the world and to our souls His great mercy.

From Matins:

Sessional hymn:

Let us, the faithful, fittingly praise the champion Paul, the net of the world, and the most-praised Peter, the rock of the Church, who holds the keys of heaven, for the universe has been enlightened by them with the faith of the Trinity. Glory to Him who has glorified you, glory to Him who has strengthened you, glory to Him who because of you has given us everlasting life.

Magnification:

We magnify you, O Peter and Paul, Apostles of Christ, who enlightened the universe with your teachings, and led the ends of the earth to Christ.

Sessional hymn after the Polyeleos:

Let us praise Peter and the all-wise Paul, the great and radiant luminaries, who were shown to be pre-eminent among the disciples; for shining forth with the fire of the divine Spirit, they burned away all the gloom of deception. Therefore they have fittingly shown to be warriors of the Kingdom above, equally enthroned in grace. For this cause we exclaim: O Apostles of Christ our God, ask forgiveness of sins to those who with love celebrate your holy memory.

Sessional hymn after psalm 50:

Let us honour with hymns of praise the true preachers of piety, the all-radiant stars of the Church; Peter, the rock of faith, and Paul, the teacher of the truth and initiate of the mysteries of Christ. Having sown the word of truth in the hearts of the faithful, may they both entreat Christ our God, who gives abundantly to all, that our souls be saved.

There are two canons sung at this feast, one for each apostle. Some examples of complementary troparia:

From Ode 1:

Having foreknown you, O most-blessed Peter, the Pre-eternal One ordained you of old as the leader of His Church, the first-enthroned.

When Christ called existence out of non-existence, O most-blessed Paul, He chose you from your mother’s womb to carry His divine name which is above every name before the nations, for He has been gloriously glorified.

From Ode 3:

On the rock of your theology, Jesus the Master established the unassailable Church, and there we glorify you, O Apostle Peter.

You have been set as a precious foundation stone for the souls of the faithful, a cornerstone of the Saviour and Lord.

Ypakoi:

What dungeon did not hold you prisoner? What Church did not have you as an orator? Damascus extols you, O Paul, for it knew you blinded by the Light; and Rome, which received your blood, boasts in you; but Tarsus, your birthplace, rejoices yet more with love and honour. O Peter, rock of the Faith, and Paul, boast of the whole world, coming together from Rome, make us steadfast.

Kontakion:

The steadfast and divinely eloquent preachers, the foremost of Your apostles, O Lord, You have received into the delight of Your good things and into rest; for You have accepted their sufferings and death as greater than any whole-burnt offering, You who alone knows the hearts of men.

From Ode 7:

Having risen from the dead, Christ appeared to you, the first-called and most beloved, as the right glorious one who was first to preside over the apostles. ***

He who in latter times was called and surpassed all others in zeal, became the seal and crown of Your apostles, O Christ. With him the people of the Church sing to You: O God of our fathers, blessed are You.

(*** A note on “first to preside over the apostles”: Peter was the chairman of the first Apostolic council at Jerusalem. As scripture and history shows, he may have been “in charge” of the meeting in an administrative sense, and he was rightly given primacy of honour among his fellow apostles, but this did not mean that his word would automatically prevail on the matters of faith being discussed. For instance, his position on the matter of circumcision prior to baptism did not prevail, following Paul’s eloquent and inspired repudiation of it

From Ode 8:

O Christ who announced to Peter that the nations were cleansed, by spiritual radiance purify my thoughts, for I cry: Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord.

You betrothed the Church to Christ, presenting it to Him as a bride; for you were shown to be its wedding-escort, O God-bearing Paul. Therefore, it glorifies you for all ages.

Exaposteilarion:

Let us all hymn the foremost among the apostles, the godly Peter and Paul, the universal luminaries, the preachers of the Faith, the divinely sounded clarions, the speakers of dogmas, the pillars of the Church and destroyers of falsehood.

From the Praises:

The most honoured feast of the apostles has arrived for the Church of Christ, bringing salvation to us all. Therefore, mystically weaving hymns for them, let us say: Hail, O lamps to those who are in darkness, shedding forth rays of the spiritual Sun! Hail, O Peter and Paul, unshakeable foundations of the divine doctrines, friends of Christ, precious vessels! Come into our midst, bestowing immaterial gifts to those who praise your feast with hymns.

Every single Orthodox church in the world uses the same text as this when celebrating this feast. Only the liturgical language used will vary. I ask again, in the light of the liturgical and iconographic tradition, is it still possible to honestly and unreservedly conclude that Peter has the higher authority over all the other apostles, including Paul?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Olga,

My thanks for an informative posting, containing much helpful source material. Just one correction of a point in your own asterisked comment:



Having risen from the dead, Christ appeared to you, the first-called and most beloved, as the right glorious one who was first to preside over the apostles. ***

(*** A note on “first to preside over the apostles”: Peter was the chairman of the first Apostolic council at Jerusalem. As scripture and history shows, he may have been “in charge” of the meeting in an administrative sense, and he was rightly given primacy of honour among his fellow apostles, but this did not mean that his word would automatically prevail on the matters of faith being discussed.

Actually, it was St James who presided over this first council, not St Peter. Peter was the first to 'give his testimony' to the gathered apostles and other disciples (including, interestingly, several Christian Pharisees); but it was James who oversaw the gathering, who provided the summation of the contributions made by all the contributors (including Peter and Paul), and then provided the judgement / determination (see Acts 15.13-21).

What the troparion of Canticle 7 of the matins canon indicates, is interesting. I would be curious if anyone knows details on the composition of the canon itself (i.e. author, date). It seems unlikely that it refers to the Jerusalem council, as it has always been understood widely in the Church that James presided there. I rather suspect the troparion considers the charge given to Peter in Matthew 16; but this is rather curious.

XB, Dcn Matthew

[Anthony]

Could it possibly refer to St Peter's presiding over the procedure that selected St Matthias?

[David Stark]

Every single Orthodox church in the world uses the same text as this when celebrating this feast. Only the liturgical language used will vary. I ask again, in the light of the liturgical and iconographic tradition, is it still possible to honestly and unreservedly conclude that Peter has the higher authority over all the other apostles, including Paul?

Absolutely. I have a question about the texts you cited. Are they post or pre-schism texts? Meaning, were they written before or after the schism of 1054? The feast and sources you mentioned are about both Peter and Paul. But even the texts you cited call Peter the rock and says Peter holds the keys to heaven. Paul is not the rock and does not hold the keys.

Saint John Chrysostom uses very precies terminology when speaking about Peter that is never used of Paul in the sources you gave. For example, Saint John refers to Peter as:

Leader [koruphe]

Has the presidency

He presides

He is the corypheaus [chief]

He is the mouth of the apostles

He is the head of that tribe.

He is the prostates of the whole world.

He is the foundation of the Church

He is the summit of the apostles

He is the unbroken rock.

He is the pillar of the Church.

He is the bulwark of the faith.

He is the ruler [arxonta].

He is the first of the apostles.

[Olga]

Actually, it was St James who presided over this first council, not St Peter.

Thank you for the correction, Fr Matthew. A silly slip on my part. Not enough coffee. :O


What the troparion of Canticle 7 of the matins canon indicates, is interesting. I would be curious if anyone knows details on the composition of the canon itself (i.e. author, date).

According to the Menaia I have at hand, the canons to both apostles were written by "John the Monk". This most likely refers to St John of Damascus, though, at other times in liturgical rubrics for other feasts, he is referred to as John Damascene, or, simply, Damascene.

The other possibility, that "John the Monk" refers to another saint, John of Lycopolis (or of Apameia), who lived in the 4thC, is unlikely, due to the several centuries separating the hymnographers known to have contributed to the Apostles' vigil, including St Andrew of Crete. There also does not appear to be any hymnographic tradition attributed to this saint.

[Olga]

I have a question about the texts you cited. Are they post or pre-schism texts? Meaning, were they written before or after the schism of 1054?

Please read my posts carefully. Below is an excerpt from an earlier post of mine on this thread:


The feast for Sts Peter and Paul dates back to no later than the mid-8thC, given that the canon at Matins was written by St John of Damascus, and other hymns by contemporaries, including St Andrew of Crete.


You also wrote:


The feast and sources you mentioned are about both Peter and Paul.

Of course they are. The Orthodox Church has seen it fit to commemorate these two apostles jointly, in the same way that there is a common feast for the Three Hierarchs (Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and Gregory the Theologian). The establishment of this feast in the 11thC arose to counter the factionalism and disputes which had arisen over "who was the greatest" of these three saints. Each of these saints had their adherents. According to Church tradition, the three saints appeared to St John the Bishop of Euchaita (June 14) in the year 1084, and said that they were equal before God. "There are no divisions among us, and no opposition to one another." They ordered that the disputes should stop, and that their common commemoration should be celebrated on a single day. Bishop John chose January 30 for their joint Feast, thus ending the controversy and restoring peace.

The Church, in its wisdom, likely for similar reasons, has established a common feast for Peter and Paul, as it holds both saints in equal regard and worthy of the same honour. This is abundantly clear in the liturgical material.


Saint John Chrysostom uses very precise terminology when speaking about Peter that is never used of Paul in the sources you gave.


Paul is not the rock and does not hold the keys.


All very well and good, Br David, but did St John write the vigil service to these saints? I reiterate that the liturgical texts for any feast are in complete accord with the mind of the Church, and are derived from scripture and the whole Patristic tradition, not simply from the works of one father, Chrysostom or otherwise.

Please pay closer attention to the imagery and terminology used for Paul in the Vigil text. He does, in fact, share many of the appellations Chrysostom uses for Peter.

The "sources" I have provided are nothing less than the liturgical texts used by the entire Orthodox Church. They are not of dubious or uncertain origin.

[Olga]

Could it possibly refer to St Peter's presiding over the procedure that selected St Matthias?

That's an interesting possibility, worth further investigation.

[David Stark]

I nevertheless return to the principle of liturgical integrity, universality and consistency, and its proclamation of Orthodox doctrine.

The Church universally held Peter as the chief apostle.

You mentioned the importance of liturgical texts. Let's take a look at ancient Greek hymnography.

The Greek Church celebrated the feast of the chains of St. Peter on January 16. The text venerates Peter as the coryphaeus, "rock of the faith," "key bearer," protothrone," and "law-giver, shepherd and teacher of Christ's flock." [Menaion, Athens 1979, January, 138-45].

Note: According to Liddell and Scott, a standard Greek lexicon, the term "coryphaeus" or "koruphaios," comes from Attic drama and "refers to the leader of the chorus, and means "foremost man, leader, chief." [Oxford University Press 1933, s.v.].

Texts for the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul, on June 29, refer to Peter as the leader [prostates] of the Church, the "great president," to whom Christ "entrusted the helm of the Church." [Pitra, LXXIII, LXXVI].

Texts for the commoration of all the apostles, on June 30, call Peter the "foundation of all the faithful," exarch of the apostles," and "divine and sacred head." [Ed. J.B. Pitra, op. cit., XIII, XVII].

A tenth century Byzantine Menology, published by B. Latysev, is strikingly reminiscent of the thinking of St. John Chrysostomos. On June 29, feast of saints Peter and Paul, it has the following notice about St. Peter, alluding to his fall and restoration:

"...and see, he learns to be patient to sinners, and he received simply the diocese of the whole world..."[Menologii Anonymi Byzantini Saeculi X Quae Supersunt, Petropolis, 1911-1912. Fasc. II, 115].

An Armenian Synaxarion attributed to to Catholicos Gregory VII of Anawarza [c.1300] commemorates, on 9 Aratz [January 6], a feast in honor of the chains of Peter, "head" of the apostles and rock of the Church." The Gregorian Synaxiarian calls Peter "head of the apostles."[PO 19:46, 734].

An Egyptian source from the early seventh century remarks that God made a promise, "saying to the chosen one and head of the apostles," Peter: "Thou art a rock, and upon it I shall build my church." [Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, Bk X, 26. Ed. J. Chabot, 2:284].

The Coptic Synaxarian calls Peter "head of the apostles." [PO. 16:313].

A notice for the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul on 5 Abib, or June 29, reads:

"...when [the Lord] chose Peter, He made him first of the disciples..........Then the Lord gave him the best part, established him as cornerstone of the Church....." [PO 17:622-3].

The Coptic Synaxarian commemorates Peter's confession on 7 Mesore, or July 31 and says:

"....Peter became the head of the disciples, and lieutenant [sic] at Rome, for the authority over all the heads of the world...." [PO 17:710].

The Ethiopian Synaxarian commorates St. Peter on 7 Nahase [August 13] and refers to him as "head of the apostles.....He [Peter] is established over all the princes of the world, the patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, priests, deacons, and the entire priestly clerical order..." [PO 9:291-2].

PETER AND PAUL

In the tradition of the Church, Saints Peter and Paul enjoy a certain distinction within the apostolic choir: they are leaders or "chiefest" of the apostles. Several fathers use this language; for example Venantius Fortunatus, the Latin hymnographer, proclaimed:

"[Paul] was more learned in his admonitions; [Peter] was higher in rank......the one opens the way to heaven by his teachings, the other by the key." [Miscellanea III, 7. PL 88:126].

Peter was prince by virtue of the key; Paul was also first by his teaching. [Miscellanea IX, 2. PL 88:299].

There are also many testimonies to Saint Peter's primacy in the Syriac liturgies, but that will have to wait for another day. He is also given primacy in west Syrian liturgies.

As for the personal statements from the Church Fathers on Peter's primacy over the other apostles, time and space does not permit such a treatment right now. I already quoted Saint John Chrystomos for now.

But I'll leave this with a quote from Saint (Pope) Leo the Great, the "pillar of Orthodoxy:"

"The right of using this authority passed on to the other apostles, but what is intimated to all is, not without reason, commended to one. For this [authority] is singularly entrusted to Peter, because the form of Peter is set before all the rulers of the Church. The priviledge of Peter remains, therefore, wherever judgement is passed through his equity, nor is there excessive severity or remission where nothing shall be bound, nothing loosed, what Blessed Peter shall have either bound or loosed." [Sermon 83: PL 54:430].

Christos Anesti!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Could it possibly refer to St Peter's presiding over the procedure that selected St Matthias?


That's an interesting possibility, worth further investigation.

I agree: this is an interesting possibility. I'd be very keen for this to be investigated further.

XB, Dcn Matthew

[David Stark]

I reiterate that the liturgical texts for any feast are in complete accord with the mind of the Church, and are derived from scripture and the whole Patristic tradition, not simply from the works of one father, Chrysostom or otherwise.

Do you agree with Saint John Chrysostomos or not? I can cite the entire consensus patrum on this. I'll cite a few examples from some Father's you are probably more familiar with.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria [412-444]:

"He allows him no longer to be called Simon, already exercising authority and power over him, as being of His house, but changes [his name] to Peter [rock], for upon him was He about to found His Church." [PG 73:220].

"He promises to found the Church, attributing unshakeability to it, as He is the Lords of powers, and over it He places Peter as shepherd." [PG 72:424].

Many Latin authors referred to Peter as "prince of the apostles." The list includes:

The priest Faustinus, c.380. [De Trinitate, 5. PL 13:71].

Salvian, a fifth century priest of Gaul. [De. Dei Gubern. VI, 1. PL 53:108].

Sedulius, the fifth century poet and priest. [In Gal.II].

Pope Pelagius I [556-560]. [Ep. 6, PL Suppl. 4:1286].

The Second Council of Braga, in 572. [PL 84:570].

Pope Pelagius II [579-590], in his third letter to the bishops of Istria. [ACO IV, Vol. 2,119].

Saint Gregory the Great [590-604], in his epistles, regularly gives the title to Peter. So does Pope Leo II [681-682].

Saint Bede, in Vita Beatorum Abbatum, ch. 1, 2, 22. [Ed. J. Stevenson, Venerabilis Bedae Opera Historica Minora, London 1841:139-41, 161].

The Life of St. Guthlac [c. 720, in A.S. 10:40].

The Life of Saint Paldo the Abbot. [A.S. 52:565].

Blessed John Cassian called Peter prince of the apostles. [De. Incarnatione III, 12].

St. Avitus, bishop of Vienne [c. 500] called Peter "the head of the apostles, that is, the prince of the princes." [Fragment I. PL 59:295].

PETER IS CORYPHAEUS OR LEADER OF THE APOSTOLIC CHOIR

This is stated by:

Eusebius of Caesarea. [In Ps. 68. PG 23:737].

Saint Athanasius. [In Ps. 15].

Saint Ephiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. [Tom. II in Anchor. 9].

Saint Macarius of Egypt. [De. Patientia, 3. PG. 34:868].

Saint John Chrysostomos [as already cited].

Saint Gregory of Nyssa. [Alt. Orat. de S. Steph].

The Acts of St. Nicetas. [A.S. 44:40].

Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus in Palestine [c. 450]. [In Ps. 2].

Barsanuphius and John. [Questions and Answers. PO 31:515].

John Moschus. [Pratum Spirittuale, 148. PG 87: 3013].

Saint Sophrnius of Jerusalem, in his synodical letter. [PG 87: 3189].

Saint Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople [c. 815]. [Mansi 14:45].

Saint Nilus [c. 425] calls Peter president or protostates of the apostles. and shepherd of the entire world. [Epp. Bk. II: 21, 75. PG. 79:208].

Saint Theodore the Studite called Peter the "coryphaeus [chief] of the apostles." [Cat. 15. Mai. Nova Patrum Bibliotheca 9:37].

Saint Cyrial of Jerusalem [c. 375]:

"Peter, the leader [protostates] of the apostles and chief herald of the Church, not using language of his own devising or persuaded by reasoning of man, but with his understanding enlightened by the Fathers, says to Him," Thou art the Christ..." [Cat. X, 3 PG 33:693].

Ambrosiaster:

"It was fitting that [Paul] should desire to see Peter, because he was first among the apostles, to whom the Savior had delegated the care of the churches." [In Gal. 1, 18. PL 17:344].

Saint Optatus, bishop of Milevis [c. 370]:

"Blessed Peter...merited both to be preferred before all the apostles, and he alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest." [De Schism. Don. VII, 3. PL 11:1087].

Origen

He describes Peter as "head" of the apostles.[ Hom. 17 in Lk.], as having "more honor than the rest." [Tom. XXII in Jn., 5] and as "greater than the other disciples." [Tom. XIII in Mt., 14].

Saint Ambrose

"...Peter is set over the Church....and He [the Lord] later chose him as pastor of the Lord's flock...." [In Ps. 43. PL 14:1163].

That will have to do it for now.

[David Stark]

Could it possibly refer to St Peter's presiding over the procedure that selected St Matthias?

The answer is no. He presided over everything.

[Olga]

A couple of brief comments for now:

1. The term koryphaios is also used for Paul in the vigil. So are many other terms which you claim to be used exclusively for Peter, such as foundation, pillar, first-throned, prince of the Apostles, cornerstone, the list goes on. This is but one example, from the Litia:


Paul, mouth of the Lord, foundation of doctrines, once the persecutor of Jesus my Saviour, but now become first-throned of the Apostles, blessed one; therefore you saw things ineffable, O wise one, when you ascended to the third heaven, and you cried: Come with me, and let us not be deprived of the blessings.

There are, of course, many others, need I go through the entire vigil text and highlight them all?

2. The Greek word prostates does not mean leader, it means protector.

3. Others on this forum can comment further on the relevance of quoting non-Calcedonian writings on this matter.

4. Asserting the primacy and supremacy of Peter, however zealous, flies in the face of Orthodox teaching, as consistently espoused and proclaimed by the liturgical and iconographic tradition. I am at a loss as to understand why Br David still cannot accept the primacy and legitimacy of the liturgical and iconographic tradition of the Orthodox Church.

[Olga]

The answer is no. He presided over everything.

Could you elaborate on this, Br David? "Everything" is a rather broad term, it can mean anything.

[Andreas Moran]

Quotation:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Could it possibly refer to St Peter's presiding over the procedure that selected St Matthias?

Quotation:
Originally Posted by Olga
That's an interesting possibility, worth further investigation.

I agree: this is an interesting possibility. I'd be very keen for this to be investigated further.

XB, Dcn Matthew

Acts 1:15-26 is commented upon by St John Chrysostom, of course. I don't know how to type out the whole passage, but Peter is referred to as, 'having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honour' [protimomenos]. Later, 'observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously'.

It is notable that at this meeting, all prayed, 'Thou, Lord, which knowest all things . . .' (v. 24), not only Peter, and the disciples chose lots - Peter did not appoint Matthias.

[Antonios]

Dear friends,

I hesitate to enter into this discussion because of my imprudence and impatience, both major sins of mine, which has already cause me a yellow penalty card on this forum regarding a similar discussion in the past. I will take my chances and put my faith in the Lord.

This discussion seems like a re-hashing of past arguments that never seem to end. Br. David, being Greek Orthodox as you state, you probably understand that the Orthodox teaching was that Peter had a special place amongst in the early Church. Whether you want to call him chief of the Apostle, leader of the Apostle, chairman of the board, or whatever else, I think you can find ample argument to state that this was the case. The idea, however, that somehow that extrapolates the pre-schism bishops of Rome as being the universal ruler of the Church (which is what the OP started the thread for), or even now, as 'Vicar of Christ' (God have mercy on us), you as an Orthodox Christian would have a problem with. Or am I missing something?

In Christ,
Antonios

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Br David Stark,


The answer is no. He presided over everything.

Your posts in this thread have struck my curiosity.

Are your comments in this thread reflective of the monastic community you are associated with? Would you be kind enough to share with us the nature of the disconnection you have presented of traditional Orthodox monastic thought relative to your comments in this thread? I ask these questions because I have never heard an Orthodox monastic articulate notions as you have in this thread for pastoral reasons firstly.

There does not seem to be much information about you within your profile. I realize that presenting vitae is sometimes seen as prideful with monastic circles as are notions like a "Vicar of Christ" type of bishop. Most Orthodox monastics pick up on that rather quickly and refrain from doing anything to further puff up such types of "bishops" privately or in public.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Deanna Leonti]

The Church universally held Peter as the chief apostle.



But I'll leave this with a quote from Saint (Pope) Leo the Great, the "pillar of Orthodoxy:"

"The right of using this authority passed on to the other apostles, but what is intimated to all is, not without reason, commended to one. For this [authority] is singularly entrusted to Peter, because the form of Peter is set before all the rulers of the Church. The privilege of Peter remains, therefore, wherever judgement is passed through his equity, nor is there excessive severity or remission where nothing shall be bound, nothing loosed, what Blessed Peter shall have either bound or loosed." [Sermon 83: PL 54:430].

Christos Anesti!

am I understanding this right? from what has been stated by previous church Fathers is that the privilege was given to Peter "alone" not to be passed down to the next apostle in line to be Peter (so to speak), Peter's personality, character and virtues were to be look up to as a role model for the other" heads" of the churches?

also, would be that it is too much of a privilege to be given to any other man other than the one {chosen} by Christ himself as he did with Peter?.

could it also be similar too if the world had one world leader?

my questions and comments are not intended to offend anyone here if they are wrong, silly or stupid.

Thank You

Deanna

[Ken McRae]

Actually, it was St James who presided over this first council, not St Peter. Peter was the first to 'give his testimony' to the gathered apostles and other disciples (including, interestingly, several Christian Pharisees); but it was James who oversaw the gathering, who provided the summation of the contributions made by all the contributors (including Peter and Paul), and then provided the judgement / determination (see Acts 15.13-21).

The quote from the Patriarch, St. John Chrysostom, (posted earlier by David,) explains why James was the president of that council:-


"And why, then, passing by the others, does He speak with (Peter) about these things? [John 21, 15] He was chosen one of the apostles, and mouth of the disciples. and leader [koruphe] of the choir. This is also why Paul once went up to see him. rather than the others. [Gal. 1, 18] and to show him that he ought to have confidence, as if the denial were done away with, He entrusts him with the presidency of the brethren...And He does not bring foward the denial, or reproaches him for for what happened, but says "if you love me, preside over the brethren." ...A third time He commands the same thing, showing how greatly He honors the presidency over His own sheep... And if anyone were to say, "How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?" I would answer that He ordained this man [Peter] teacher, not of that throne, but of the world." [Hom. 88in Jn. PG 59:478-80].

Again: "And if anyone were to say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?' I would answer that He ordained this man [Peter] teacher, not of that throne, but of the world." [Hom. 88in Jn. PG 59:478-80]. St. John's expression "of the world" seems, to me at least, fairly "universal" in its reach. Who does St. John say ordained Peter "teacher of the whole world?" Jesus.

[Kosta]

The problem is we are giving dogmatic expressions to writings which arent conveying any.
St John Chrysostom said the same thing about Paul, "Angels often recieve the missions of guarding the nations, but none of them ever governed the people confided to him as Paul governed the whole universe... The hebrew people were confided to Michael the Archangel, and to Paul were confided the earth, the sea, the inhabitants of all the universe , even the desert."(2nd homily panegyric upon st Paul).

St John Chrysostom used the same colorful language to other apostles such as John the Apostle hving refered to him as ,"prince of the apostles" and that both Peter and John, that the "Universe was confided to them" . In Chrysostom 1st homily on the gospel of St John, he writes about this apostle, "It is the Son of Thunder, the Beloved Disciple of Christ, the Pillar of all the churches in the world, who now comes to us, it is he who posesses the keys of the kingdom...."

St Epiphanius of Cyprus wrote,- ' He (James) first recieved the See of Jerusalem, it is to him first that the Lord entrusted His Throne upon Earth."(Epip haeres 78)

In previous posts some bring up St Theodore the Studite who battled against iconoclasm. Some see in his language towards the papacy as something more. St Theodore wrote such lavish things to all his allies who stood against iconoclasm. It was not only Rome but Jerusalem as well that refuted iconoclasm. Thus St Theodore used the same language towards that see as well, when he said to the Jerusalem Patriarch that he is ,"The First of the Five Patriarchs."

I can come up with quotes such as these all day long.

[Ken McRae]

I can come up with quotes such as these all day long.

Please do, by all means! They are very interesting and helpful to the discussion. I would like to see a complete and thorough analysis and discussion of such passages in St. John's writings. It would be a great thesis to pursue, for a theological degree. Still, that does not change the fact that in this particular passage ...


"If anyone were to say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?' I would answer that He ordained this man [Peter] teacher, not of that throne, but of the world." [Hom. 88in Jn. PG 59:478-80].

... St. John clearly says that St. James (or the See of Jerusalem,) is not the teacher of the "whole-world." Your response to that fact fails, in my humble opinion, to satisfactorily reconcile this text to the other passages in his writings which you say "contradict" it. Any such thorough study of St. John's ecclesiology would require dating such texts, in order to examine the flow and development in his theological experience and expression. It would require distinguishing his "mature" vision from his "earlier" view of this.

I fully grant, nevertheless, that homilies of this nature have a lower degree of authority than councils, obviously, but they are not without some authority themselves; [u]especially on account of St. John's ecclesiastical rank[/b] as one of the Church's "Three Holy Hierarchs;" unless, of course, you wish to say that this title of "The Three Holy Hierarchs" is actually meaningless hyperbolic rhetoric.

[Herman Blaydoe]

"If anyone were to say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?' I would answer that He ordained this man [Peter] teacher, not of that throne, but of the world." [Hom. 88in Jn. PG 59:478-80]

Yeah, yeah, and the Patriarch of Alexandria is the "Judge of the Universe", does that mean he can pull rank?

Even if the Fathers were not fond of hyperbolic language, the Church of Rome then was NOT the Church of Rome now. That was all long before immaculate conceptions and infallibility and before primacy became "supremacy". And a "teacher of the world" is not the same as boss of the world.

[Ken McRae]

And a "teacher of the world" is not the same as boss of the world.

"Teacher of the world," as employed by St. John in that specific context, means not just the teacher of one single See, or jurisdiction. That is fairly obvious, I should think, from the contrast made with St. James, whom he says was the teacher not of "the whole world," but of Jerusalem alone.

[Misha]

some very interesting points about pope's place in pre schism Church, by an ex papist :

why i abandoned papism (http://www.impantokratoros.gr/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx)

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Ken.


It would be a great thesis to pursue, for a theological degree.

Sometimes people flunk or applications are rejected for good reasons.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Antonios]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/MHS_ojcowie_ks_Bazyli_Wlk_Jan_Chryzostom_Grzeg_Wlk _XVII_Lipie_p.jpg/537px-MHS_ojcowie_ks_Bazyli_Wlk_Jan_Chryzostom_Grzeg_Wlk _XVII_Lipie_p.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/MHS_ojcowie_ks_Bazyli_Wlk_Jan_Chryzostom_Grzeg_Wlk _XVII_Lipie_p.jpg)
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9b/3HolyHierarchs.jpg/250px-3HolyHierarchs.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Holy_Hierarchs&h=268&w=250&sz=29&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=uBVU7nhby3Ne0M:&tbnh=113&tbnw=105&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dthree%2Bholy%2Bheirarchs%26imgsz%3Dsm all%257Cmedium%257Clarge%257Cxlarge%26um%3D1%26hl% 3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DNhttp://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9b/3HolyHierarchs.jpg/250px-3HolyHierarchs.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Holy_Hierarchs&h=268&w=250&sz=29&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=uBVU7nhby3Ne0M:&tbnh=113&tbnw=105&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dthree%2Bholy%2Bheirarchs%26imgsz%3Dsm all%257Cmedium%257Clarge%257Cxlarge%26um%3D1%26hl% 3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Ken,

For your records Ken, it is not possible for Orthodox iconographers to paint icons of post schism 'Bishops' of Rome that think themselves to be "Vicars of Christ" or "Successors of Christ".

It is possible for those in communion with Rome to paint people and things as they see fit. As such there is much more involved in such things than simply different schools of thought, so things appear.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Paul Cowan]

Antonios,

This icon you posted did something really weird to my screen. It is beyond the size of the screen itself. All my sidbars are overlapping and I have to scroll sideways to read all my posts now, at least on this thread. Can you resize it? or is ti just how my computer sees it? This is really humongous.

Paul

If this works I deleted the icon from Antonios' post above. It was killing my screen size.

Woohoo it worked.

[Antonios]

Antonios,

This icon you posted did something really weird to my screen. It is beyond the size of the screen itself. All my sidbars are overlapping and I have to scroll sideways to read all my posts now, at least on this thread. Can you resize it? or is ti just how my computer sees it? This is really humongous.

Paul

Dear Paul,

Forgive me. I just figured it out and fixed it. Thank you.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Kosta]

Please do, by all means! They are very interesting and helpful to the discussion. I would like to see a complete and thorough analysis and discussion of such passages in St. John's writings. It would be a great thesis to pursue, for a theological degree. Still, that does not change the fact that in this particular passage ...



... St. John clearly says that St. James (or the See of Jerusalem,) is not the teacher of the "whole-world." Your response to that fact fails, in my humble opinion, to satisfactorily reconcile this text to the other passages in his writings which you say "contradict" it. Any such thorough study of St. John's ecclesiology would require dating such texts, in order to examine the flow and development in his theological experience and expression. It would require distinguishing his "mature" vision from his "earlier" view of this.

I fully grant, nevertheless, that homilies of this nature have a lower degree of authority than councils, obviously, but they are not without some authority themselves; [u]especially on account of St. John's ecclesiastical rank[/b] as one of the Church's "Three Holy Hierarchs;" unless, of course, you wish to say that this title of "The Three Holy Hierarchs" is actually meaningless hyperbolic rhetoric.

Dear Ken,
As you can see from my previous post St John Chrysostom actually uses more exalted language for Paul than for Peter. You cannot use his writings to establish any teaching of a dogmatic nature for the claim of papal supremacy.
Thats the whole point St John Chrysostom said that about Paul and John as well. Chrysostom did not see some sort of divine primacy which can be passed down except for Apostolic Succesion which is derived from any apostle (Ill leave those quotes for another time). What he says about Peter is hyperbole because its the same thing he says about Paul as well. In fact in one quote of St John Chrysostom he actually elevates Paul above Peter, "In the place where the Cherubim are covered with glory, and where the seraphim soar there shall we see Paul with Peter, Paul who is the prince and president of the choir of the saints"(homily 32 epistle to romans)

Secondly you cannot use what is said of Peter by St John Chrysostom and futher apply it to the city of Rome. St John Chrysostom always viewed his hometown of Antioch as the most blessed city on earth and he makes this clear in the following paragraph:

"One of the prerogatives of our city (Antioch) was to have for her teacher Peter, the leader of the Apostles. It was just that the city which first of all the world was adorned with the name of Christian should have for her Bishop the first of the Apostles. But having recieved him as a teacher, we did not keep him always, we yielded him to the imperial city of Rome, or rather, we have always kept him. For if we have not the body of Peter, we have kept the faith of Peter as our Peter, since holding Peter's faith is as though we held Peter himself."(hom 2 acts of the apostles)

As we can see, Chrysostom believes Peter as universal Teacher naturally implys that he is not limited to one bishopric but belongs to all who hold the faith of Peter.

As far as St James, you are reading to much into what Chrysostom said about Peter, The above quote simply sees Peter as a missionizing apostle which was true while James stayed behind in Jerusalem to run the Jerusalem Church. When St John Chrysostom gave commentary on the Jerusalem council of acts 15, he says this, "Peter's language had been more vehement, that of James is more moderate. It is thus those should always act who posses great power. He leaves severity for others and reserves moderation for himself...What means 'I Judge'?(acts15.19) It means 'I Affirm' , with authority that the thing is thus... James therefore decided the whole question."(hom 33 acts of the apostles)

[Ken McRae]

Sometimes people flunk or applications are rejected for good reasons.

Thanks, but personally, I'm not a big believer in Seminaries. The one thing necessary
is certainly not a seminary education, but acquisition of the Holy Spirit. If you really
want to acquire the Spirit, run away from the Seminary and flee out into the desert!

[Matthew Panchisin]

Surely people can process things like the writings of the Orthodox Church fathers rendering hurtful to not just one soul but many souls. God help us to be truly charitable at all times. I think that this is why the Church fathers could not see the heretics as being charitable, loving etc. while spreading distortions. In other words in very serious matters that effect peoples souls they really are not being charitable even when they and others proclaim that they are.

I forgot to mention it is possible for Orthodox iconographers to paint icons of Saint Peter, so there is a difference you see.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/wirelesspro_2003_1102182

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Ken,

The Holy Spirit can't be embraced in the seminary? There are some wonderful Priests, professors there and seminarians as well, joyful, kind, loving. They sound good to me, one can even enjoy their giving hearts online!

Actually the last time I was in Jerusalem I looked at the desert and quickly came to the conclusion I wouldn't last very long. I'm rather used to cool and pleasant air conditioning around friends.

If my memory serves me correctly, to quote one joyful Bishops professor. "It's all connected you see?"



In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Ken McRae]

some very interesting points about pope's place in pre schism Church, by an ex papist: why i abandoned papism (http://www.impantokratoros.gr/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx)

Thank you very much for that link. His testimony was striking several chords deep within me, to be honest. I wish his books were available in English, as I'd love to acquire and study them, especially these mentioned immediately below:

"Soon after I published in Buenos Aires my three volume study, I put an end to the skirmishes with the papists. In that study I had collected all the clauses in the patristic literature of the first four centuries, which directly or indirectly refer to the 'primacy clauses' (Matt 16:18-19; John 21:15-17; Luke 22: 31-32). I proved that the teachings about the Pope were absolutely foreign and contrary to the interpretation given by the Fathers on the issue. "

I was deeply saddened to learn of his death.

[Ken McRae]

They sound good to me, one can even enjoy their giving hearts online!

That it so very true, and I do very much appreciate Fr. Dcn. Matthew's great kindness for being allowed to participate in some samll way in the benefits of tbis Forum. Monachos is performing a great service for the Kingdom of Heaven, in several obvious ways. I apolgize for the crass way it may have sounded.

Still, at this point in history, where we find ourselves standing right now, this very minute, and the widespread decadence of society, in general, my "gut feeling" is that the "desert" is a better place in which to conquer the passions.

Now, to have the perfect theological seminary situated right in the middle of the desert, that strikes me personally just a little like a dream come true, in the best possible sense; at least for me, but please forgive me for indulging myself in sinful dreams. It is a real weakness, I humbly admit.



Actually the last time I was in Jerusalem I looked at the desert and quickly came to the conclusion I wouldn't last very long. I'm rather used to cool and pleasant air conditioning around friends.

Excuses profit us nothing. Have you never heard of the "northern thebaid?" It has been a place of "paradise" to many thousands of your holy Russian ancestors; like St. Herman of Alaska and Elder Zosima of Siberia, to mention but two.



If my memory serves me correctly, to quote one joyful Bishops professor. "It's all connected you see?"

That is true, to a point, of course.

However, we must be realistic here. The holy saints and grace-bearing elders tell us that in the last days, few monastics themselves will barely save their own souls, through holy martydom alone; on account of their great poverty in the virtues.

Holy Scripture itself says that the last days will be like the days of Noah, at which time only eight souls were saved. Whatever the "literal" number was, it was but few, we can be sure! So, of those eight souls, that will be saved at the end of time, how many of them do you imagine will be living in the very heart of Sodom itself? And how many in "the desert?"

Realistically speaking, how many layman living in the very heart of darkness, that is to say, in Sodom and Gomorrah itself, will actually save their souls, in the last days?

[Ken McRae]

Thus St Theodore ..."The First of the Five Patriarchs."

Can anyone here source this for me; that is to say, identify the document(s) in which St. Theodore uses such language? I'd like to check that out further.

Thanks.

[Paul Cowan]

Dear Paul,

Forgive me. I just figured it out and fixed it. Thank you.

In Christ,
Antonios

Hi Antonios,

Can you tell me how you made it smaller so I can make my reply to you smaller and get my screen back down to normal size? Feel free to PM. Thanks

[Herman Blaydoe]

I fully grant, nevertheless, that homilies of this nature have a lower degree of authority than councils, obviously, but they are not without some authority themselves; [u]especially on account of St. John's ecclesiastical rank[/b] as one of the Church's "Three Holy Hierarchs;" unless, of course, you wish to say that this title of "The Three Holy Hierarchs" is actually meaningless hyperbolic rhetoric.

I truly hope you are not discounting hyperbolic rhetoric as "meaningless". This would be a very serious mistake. This may be hard for the western rationalist-trained mind to accept or understand, but hyperbole is a very legitimate rhetorical tool, used to add emphasis and meaning, without the obligation of having to be taken "literally". This does not make it meaningless, you are simply not grasping the real meaning. Our Lord Himself used this tool in many places and causes the literalists no end of grief in their attempts at exigesis. The ancient languages did not have punctuation like exclamation points, "quotes" or "smilies" to get the point across and other devices had to be used, such as hyperbole. There are cultural barriers that can cause serious misunderstandings, especially when they are simply discounted, ignored, or are "bent" to mean something they were never originally intended to mean. Text without context is pretext.

[Ken McRae]

Our Lord Himself used this tool in many places and causes the literalists no end of grief in their attempts at exigesis.

Your caricature of the "Western" understanding and use of literary devices could'nt more inaccurate, to be honest. However, let's see exactly how Christ used this literary device, if you have something specific in mind.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Ken,


Realistically speaking, how many layman living in the very heart of darkness, that is to say, in Sodom and Gomorrah itself, will actually save their souls, in the last days?

There is a greater kindness that is exceedingly greater to be very much appreciated. Fr. Dcn. Matthew's great kindness for welcoming many Orthodox Christians and guests from other traditions to participate here is a virtue extended to others from the Orthodox Church.


Still, at this point in history, where we find ourselves standing right now, this very minute, and the widespread decadence of society, in general, my "gut feeling" is that the "desert" is a better place in which to conquer the passions.

Sodom and Gomorrah is a place where mens hearts go the wrong way.

One of the first things monastics learn and often layman as well is not to trust your own "gut feelings" which can be very misleading. For instance, I know of no Orthodox Christian that is desires to see Saint Peter's crown in paradise trampled under the feet of men through manipulations of his encounter with Christ, the One Who Is.


Excuses profit us nothing. Have you never heard of the "northern thebaid?" It has been a place of "paradise" to many thousands of your holy Russian ancestors; like St. Herman of Alaska and Elder Zosima of Siberia, to mention but two.

The place of paradise for many Russians and Orthodox Christians that are not Russian has traditionally been seen as the Orthodox Church. As such I find my excuse profits me much indeed. It is the best good excuse, thanks be to God. There is a place in Des Plaines Illinois, a Cathedral, there I have found a Russian Bishop that extended his hand and gave me a paint brush and showed me how to use it. So the things of paradise ultimately come from the Church for the sanctification of many people and things.

There was a woman that was not allowed into the Church and ended up in the desert. A Priestmonk, Saint Zosima showed up and brought much more than paradise to her. I don't think fleeing the Orthodox Church to mislead myself in a desert would be a good idea here. People go to the desert and fall in love with such places because of the Church where they ultimately find the greatest joy. Nothing is profane from the Church. Intellects can fail or be played around with by the devil, people have learned that in the desert for sure. Nevertheless people in perfect theological seminaries or desert setting are sanctified by the Church.

There is much more I could say but I have to go now, perhaps latter.

Be at peace Ken.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Misha]

Thank you very much for that link. His testimony was striking several chords deep within me, to be honest. I wish his books were available in English, as I'd love to acquire and study them, especially these mentioned immediately below:

"Soon after I published in Buenos Aires my three volume study, I put an end to the skirmishes with the papists. In that study I had collected all the clauses in the patristic literature of the first four centuries, which directly or indirectly refer to the 'primacy clauses' (Matt 16:18-19; John 21:15-17; Luke 22: 31-32). I proved that the teachings about the Pope were absolutely foreign and contrary to the interpretation given by the Fathers on the issue. "



Dear Ken I hope that someone in this forum will give you the information you want about fr Paul's books.
Maybe they can been found through the Greekortodox Archdiocese of America,where he served as a bishop.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Your caricature of the "Western" understanding and use of literary devices couldn't more inaccurate, to be honest. However, let's see exactly how Christ used this literary device, if you have something specific in mind.


Have you cut off a hand or plucked out an eye lately? (Matthew 5:29-30). Have you cast anyone into the sea with a millstone around their neck? (Matthew 18:6). That is just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are other and better examples. If you have a better understanding of this particular literary device, please share.

Hyperbole can be misused, but it is not meaningless.

[Ken McRae]

Have you cut off a hand or plucked out an eye lately? (Matthew 5:29-30).

A hand may be "cut-off" and an "eye" may be plucked out figuratively or spiritually, and so I am disinclined from viewing this as a good example of hyperbole; while it is obviously "figurative" language denoting the mortification of "constitutional" sins; which so easily entrap us, on account of natural weakness and predispositions.


Have you cast anyone into the sea with a millstone around their neck? (Matthew 18:6).

This particular saying I take to mean "literally" what Christ said, that it would be better for a man to commit suicide, than it would be for him to commit offences against those "little ones," (to whom the Lord referred,) by tying a "literal" stone around his neck, and "literally" throwing himself into the depths of the sea.



Hyperbole can be misused, but it is not meaningless.

Agreed; so there is no need to produce other examples of it. When I said "meaningless," I did'nt really mean that. In hindsight, it was rash of me to state it like that. Yes, I believe hyperbole is a literary device used in Scripture. However, I do not agree that all figurative language is necessarily "hyperbolic."

[Herman Blaydoe]

; so there is no need to produce other examples of it. When I said "meaningless," I did'nt really mean that. In hindsight, it was rash of me to state it like that. Yes, I believe hyperbole is a literary device used in Scripture. However, I do not agree that all figurative language is necessarily "hyperbolic."

Agreed indeed. So we are agreed that hyperbole and figurative language are legitimate tools used to communicate and emphasize specific points and need not be taken completely literally, and that perhaps we occasionally read more into them than was originally intended?

[Ken McRae]

Agreed indeed. So we are agreed that hyperbole and figurative language are legitimate tools used to communicate and emphasize specific points and need not be taken completely literally, and that perhaps we occasionally read more into them than was originally intended?

Yes, without question. I cannot see any just ground for denying that. What you have stated there is the truth, so far as I presently know it.

[Andreas Moran]

This exchange reminds me of what William Barclay wrote: when Christ said, 'I am the door' (John 10:9) he did not mean He was a 70x30 inch panel of wood!

[Deanna Leonti]

well would someone be able to explain the results, I for one am not sure what the real answer is.

sorry, I am not Orthodox

:)

Deanna

[Paul Cowan]

Of the 57 people that have responded 84.21% of them do not feel


Can the Orthodox Church concede that the Pope was once 'universal ruler'?

There is a margin of error here as Mike can attest that there are nonOrthodox forum members that may have voted lowering the percentage.

[Ken McRae]

This exchange reminds me of what William Barclay wrote: when Christ said, 'I am the door' (John 10:9) he did not mean He was a 70x30 inch panel of wood!

While I'm not exactly sure who this William Barclay is, or was, I'll hazard a guess he was a Protestant 'symbolist' who denied the "real presence" of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Concerning the above words, then, my guess is that Barclay is saying Christ did not really mean "this is my body," when he took bread and broke it, but that he was "exaggerating," or only speaking "figuratively," and by no means "literally."

[Paul Cowan]

While I'm not exactly sure who this William Barclay is, or was, I'll hazard a guess he was a Protestant 'symbolist' who denied the "real presence" of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Concerning the above words, then, my guess is that Barclay is saying Christ did not really mean "this is my body," when he took bread and broke it, but that he was "exaggerating," or only speaking "figuratively," and by no means "literally."

If this is the case, then why did many of Jesus' followers fall away after he said this? It was because they thought he was promoting cannabalism and that they were to actually eat him. We are a weak people as was stated above. We cannot endure eating raw flesh and drinking blood. Therefore Christ condensends to our weakness by not allowing us to "see" Him rather to see only bread and wine.

I have read some fathers and mostly those that had doubts about the transformation of the msteries were allowed to "see" christ being cut up and his blood flowing into the chalice. Even up to the point they were to consume it. At this point they cried out for mercy to God and they were changed back to what we perceive as bread and wine.

Paul

[Andreas Moran]

William Barclay was indeed a Scottish Protestant. It is true that he was not Orthodox in his assessment of such matters as the Eucharist and some miracles of Christ. However, his commentaries are still worth reading if you leave out the few 'un-Orthodox' bits. His commentaries were recommended to me by Bishop Eireniaios who knew Barclay well. The Bishop told me that Barclay was the only British scholar of Greek he respected, and he was steeped in the Fathers such as St John Chrysostom. Barclay's insight into koine Greek was unmatched, the Bishop said. His historical insights of the context of events in the NT are invaluable. He was very learned in the history of 1st century Palestine. We should not dismiss such a source out of hand. Read him carefully and there is much to be learned from him but just 'skim over' the bits that are not Orthodox. As the Bishop put it, 'bees can collect pollen from a variety of plants'.

[Deanna Leonti]

I am not sure but i thought I saw in a headline about a Pope of Russia?, could it have been an error or is the term Pope can be used for Patriarch also ? It wasn't Patriarch Alexi.

Thanks,

Deanna

[Herman Blaydoe]

I am not sure but i thought I saw in a headline about a Pope of Russia?, could it have been an error or is the term Pope can be used for Patriarch also ? It wasn't Patriarch Alexi.

Thanks,

Deanna

The Copts refer to their Patriarch of Alexandra as Pope Shenuda. Of course, to us Orthodox, the Pope is supposed to be just another Patriarch, or you could say each Patriarch is a "pope" as the Orthodox define the term.

[Anthony]

I think the Orthodox (Chalcedonian) Patriarch of Alexandria is also referred to as Pope and Patriarch. In the old days the Archbishop of Carthage was also known as Pope (I believe). In other words there is nothing ecclesiologically "special" about the title Pope - it just got associated with certain important bishops. At least this is my understanding - somebody please correct me if I am wrong.

But I don't think the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia has ever used the title, so I have no idea what that headline might have been about.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

All these terms just mean 'father' so they each work in their own context.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Joanna Wilson]

Thank you John Father Tom's article was great reading. I sent it on to a few friends.

J