Head of the Church

[David Newman]

I hope I can start a new thread here on the subject of who is head of the Church. I would like us to start from scratch and stay on this topic alone. It is my position that within the first millenium, the popes were considered head of the Church and the supreme ruler of the Church. However I am inclined to believe that currently the popes have lost this primacy. But a case can me made from the fathers and councils that it is impossible for Rome to lose the primacy because it's a divine primacy. I believe there must be a visible head for the purpose of safeguarding unity. Who is currently the visble head of Eastern Orthodoxy? It seems to me that a body without a head won't work.

[Kosta]

I hope I can start a new thread here on the subject of who is head of the Church. I would like us to start from scratch and stay on this topic alone. It is my position that within the first millenium, the popes were considered head of the Church and the supreme ruler of the Church. However I am inclined to believe that currently the popes have lost this primacy. But a case can me made from the fathers and councils that it is impossible for Rome to lose the primacy because it's a divine primacy. I believe there must be a visible head for the purpose of safeguarding unity. Who is currently the visble head of Eastern Orthodoxy? It seems to me that a body without a head won't work.


The head of the church is Jesus Christ, the visible earthly overseer of each diocese is the bishop and each one of these bishops constitutes the synod.

The bishops of Rome were only recognized with a primacy, only on the basis of priveleges afforded to them by various councils (and these priveleges werent many). Most notable would be canon 6 of Nicea which established a primacy of honor for Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch in that order, because this was also the secular ranking of importance for these cities within the empire. The ranking is based on the political prestige of the city within the empire.

Before this such an ecclesiastical ranking did not exist. In fact we know from the NT that the Jerusalem Church was the center of missionary activity until 66 a.d. and till the 3rd century Antioch was the most prestigious christian center and later Alexandria was able to rival it for a short time, Rome took a back seat to both these centers on matters of christianity.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I hope I can start a new thread here on the subject of who is head of the Church. I would like us to start from scratch and stay on this topic alone. It is my position that within the first millenium, the popes were considered head of the Church and the supreme ruler of the Church. However I am inclined to believe that currently the popes have lost this primacy. But a case can me made from the fathers and councils that it is impossible for Rome to lose the primacy because it's a divine primacy. I believe there must be a visible head for the purpose of safeguarding unity. Who is currently the visble head of Eastern Orthodoxy? It seems to me that a body without a head won't work.

This topic has been covered many times. I suggest that you use the search feature to see what has been already discussed at length. This is not a place for Orthodox-Catholic debate, there are plenty of those elsewhere.

I am not sure what value another "from scratch" debate is going to add.

Herman the submoderator

[Joshua G.]

Hi David,

I'll let others delve into the specifics of patristic writings. However, my perspective is that, yes, things have been said in the Early Church that would lead one to believe that some at that time believed Rome held a divine primacy. But, this understanding doesn't seem to be universal and something that monumental should. Rather, I believe that these patriarchs saw a Rome that was a beacon to the Church throughout heresies both before and during their time. It only made sense to them that there was a special, unique and divine guidance granted to Rome (and I could easily be convinced of that) and that the primacy She enjoyed was not just a fruit of Her martyrs, her centrality in the secular world and the amazing men who were called to rule that See, but that it was a timeless divine guidance that was innate to the Church. For many of these Church Fathers, imagining the Church without Rome as her leader was unthinkable.

But, it happened. Rome fell away (from our POV) for various reasons. That's the sad fact. I don't know if we Orthodox always appreciate how very sad that is. I don't know if we get how terrible the schism is for our Church. While it is true that Rome is not ready to come home, the attitude that we are fine without Rome is unproductive and misses the point. Yes, we are still the Church with or without Rome, just as my co-workers family is still a family despite their son having committed suicide. It's tragic and that's not hyperbole.

By the way, I know it seems cliche to believe that Christ is our Head, but we really do believe that. That's not just a clever quip to the perennial Catholic inquiry to posted. Would it be helpful and good to have a bishop with Primacy (note, not supremacy, that's different). Yes. But that's something that must be earned and deserved. Rome held primacy because She earned it, and then she lost it by her own making. But yes, it would be WONDERFUL if all of our patriarchs would push aside their pride and look to one primate as a central spoke rather than bicker over who should have it. I don't care which patriarch it is. It would just be beneficial to have a head chef in the kitchen. That doesn't mean they call the shots. All MUST be done conciliarly, but we need a mediator at the very least. And, if God should be so kind as to once again offer us a beacon in the Church as Rome once played, than all the better. Surely it is our own pride keeping us from that. But we are still the Church regardles of how easy the road is.

I say that the proof is in the pudding. Were the OC a corporation, we would be as dead as GM or Chrysler. It doesn't make sense that our Church still holds to truth with such a chaotic structure. without an earthly CEO. But, our CEO is Christ (okay, that was cheesy, but I had to complete the analogy) through the Holy Spirit.

God bless friend,

Xpy

[David Newman]

The head of the church is Jesus Christ, the visible earthly overseer of each diocese is the bishop and each one of these bishops constitutes the synod.


I certainly hope they allow discussion here because I really want to know the truth. I need to talk with orthodox people. I agree with you that Christ is the spiritual head of the Church. But this does not mean he did not leave the worldly Church with a visible head. It's not an "either / or". It can be both (Christ and a visible head).

[quote=Kosta;76114]The bishops of Rome were only recognized with a primacy, only on the basis of priveleges afforded to them by various councils (and these priveleges werent many).

The Decree of Pope Damasus [382]:

"Likewise it is decreed...we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all Catholic churches throughout the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless the holy Roman church has been set before the other churches not by any synodical decrees but by the evangelical voice of our Lord and Savior, saying: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kindgom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Epp. VII, 34. PL 77: 893).

Do you agree?

[Paul Cowan]

Do you agree?


No.


Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven.”
20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ

"This rock" refers to the proclomation of Jesus being the Son of God. Not to Peter. He then turns to all the disciples and confers on all 12 of them the ability to bind and to loose as you can see in vese 20 he tells all the disciples not to tell anyone. They were all being spoken to not just Peter. Peter is specifically named because he spoke up and had the right answer.


But there are many many areas on the forum where we have already had this discussion. Please use the search feature to read them.

[Andreas Moran]

I think that in the passage quoted, 'you' in vv. 17-19 inclusive is in the singular - 'σοι'.

[Kosta]

[quote=Kosta;76114] I certainly hope they allow discussion here because I really want to know the truth. I need to talk with orthodox people. I agree with you that Christ is the spiritual head of the Church. But this does not mean he did not leave the worldly Church with a visible head. It's not an "either / or". It can be both (Christ and a visible head).



The Decree of Pope Damasus [382]:

"Likewise it is decreed...we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all Catholic churches throughout the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless the holy Roman church has been set before the other churches not by any synodical decrees but by the evangelical voice of our Lord and Savior, saying: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kindgom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Epp. VII, 34. PL 77: 893).

Do you agree?



I agree with a portion of the statement: ..."all Catholic churches (PLURAL) throughout the world compromise one bridal chamber of Christ...." The decree of Damasus is proof positive beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that there was no divine primacy given the roman bishops, it was completely unknown in the early church.

As we can see in 382 a.d. even Rome and her bishops did not view herself as the sole 'catholic church", instead each local church regardless of how large or prestigious is the fullness of the church catholic, and Pope Damasus acknowledges this in the above decree; while the Rome of today does not.

The decree of Damasus is simply political maneuvering, decreed immediately after the passage of canon 3 of Constantinople which gave the new royal city the 2nd place eclipsing Alexandria and Antioch in the ranking. Its also no surprise that immediately after the ecumenical council of Constantinople in 381, Pope Damasus began calling Rome the "Apostolic See'. This was not coincidence but political, due to the growing influence of the Constantinople Church but which was not known to have an apostolic founding.

While most of the roman apologists stop where the decree speaks of 'binding and loosing', the decree has more to say. When we continue to read the rest of the passages of this decree in context, we see that Pope Damasus also includes Alexandria and Antioch as having authority thru the same "divine primacy" and attempts to discredit canon 6 of Nicea as being the source of the rankings :

"Therefore first is the seat of the roman church of the Apostle Peter having no spot or wrinkle. However the second place was given in the name of blessed Peter to Mark his disciple and gospel writer at Alexandria, and who himself wrote down the word of truth and gloriously consumated his life in martyrdom. Indeed the third place is held in Antioch of the most blessed and honorable apostle Peter who lived there before he came to Roma and where first the name of the new race of the christians was heard."

But by establishing the title of "Apostolic See", Pope Damasus demonstrated that the only reason Rome is ranked first and not Alecandria or Antioch based on this newly invented petrine theory, (which he originated to curb the growing influence of Constantinople) is soley based upon the fact that Peter and Paul were martyred there, if these apostles were martyred in Antioch then Antioch would hold the first place. Pope Damasus saw only the martyrdom of Peter and Paul as the reason why they hold rank over Alexandria and Antioch since the latter have been given the same Petrine primacy:

"In addition there is also the presence of the Blessed apostle Paul, the chosen one,...but on the same day and same date was crowned in glorious death with the Apostle Peter in the city of Rome suffering under Nero Caesar, and EQUALLY have made the above mentioned Holy Roman Church special in Christ the Lord and gave preference in their presence, and veneration-worthy triumph before all other CITIES in the whole world."

here is the link to read the entirety in context scroll down to roman numeral III (unfotunately this translation does not give us the correct form of catholic churches in plural as David's version does):
http://tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

[Fabio Lins]

Do you know what closed the case for me? As a language teacher I know words and texts can have various interpretations. Even if you find that one particular interpretation is more common - and *most* fathers said that the rock was the confession of Peter - yet, maybe the minority who said it was Peter himself might be right.

I wondered then how nice would it have been if we had a direct writing from one of the people involved in the event explaining the passage. Certainly one of the apostles would be the best source to understand.

And to my surprise, no other than St. Peter himself did it! *He* was the person addressed, *he* received the Hoy Spirit who "explained everything".

St. Peter explains in the second chapter of his first epistle:

3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord {is} gracious.
4 To whom coming, {as unto} a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, {and} precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. {are: or, be ye}
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe {he is} precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, {precious: or, an honour}
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, {even to them} which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

I Peter 2:3-8

And then again in I Peter 5:1

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

Here he is precisely speaking about the government of the church by the "elders" the presbyters. It would not be proud of him to say that he was an overseer of the elders had Jesus himself given him this office. St. Paul does not hesitate to say that people should imitate himself to imitate Christ. Surely a rule given by Jesus Christ about the government of the Church would not be ommited if He had indeed given it. But not only it is not mentioned, S. Peter himself in these two passages afirms positively a *different* organization: the rock Jesus told *him* in that dialogue is Christ Himself, and the government of the Church belongs to the "elders" of which he is one.

If there is any doubt about that, one has just to confirm that right after the famous S. Matthew 16:18, the apostles engage on a debate in St. Matthew 18:01 about who was the greatest in the Kingdom. Had St. Peter already been appointed the discussion would not even exist.

So, in face of the explanation of St. Peter himself, in face of the fact that the Apostles *before* the Pentecost were also at loss and confused about the concept of the absence of a leader in the traditional way - it is really not easy to understand that - and considering that most fathers say the rock was the confession, some say it was Peter and a few that it was Jesus, my conclusion is:

It was pretty obvious, from the Gospel, that the Rock was Jesus Himself. That is why the fathers when writing were delving into deeper misteries of the passage. St. Peter, in the mentioned passage, also explains that we are all rocks too. So, to me, St. Matthew 16:18 is one of the first theologies of the icon. We are image and strive for the likeness of God. He is CHRIST. We are CHRISTians, little christs. He is the Lamb. We are sheep . Similar, but not equal. He is Light of Light. We are the light of the world according to His own word. He is the Food from Heaven. We are the salt of the world. He is The Rock upon which the little rocks, us, are built. His body is the temple, we are the bricks.

So, in St. Matthew 16:18 it is revealed everything that all the Fathers have said: the Rock *IS* Jesus and Jesus only. The confession that Jesus is the Son of God is what turns us into "little rocks", so it is a rock in itself. And because St. Peter confessed it, he turned to be a rock at that moment at least, since right after Jesus also reproaches him. But while he was *in the confession* he was a rock.

The same with Rome. While it was in the confession, it was a rock in the image of The Rock. When it lapsed, it ceased to be so.

A visible leader? Why, Jesus *is* very visible, solid and concrete. What kind of body has a visible and an invisible head? Why would the leadership of the omnipotent God himself, even if invisible, be lacking of anything as to require a human, even if a bishop to be manifested? There are, for sure, leaders in the Church. And leaders among the bishops and, once they are all gathered a *natural* leadership is risen and from God. But the authority of this leadership depends on his Orthodoxy. The problem of Rome is that they have come to believe in the contrary: not that the human leader of the bishops derives his authority from how perferctly he participates in Orthodoxy, but that Orthodoxy emanates from participating in the leaders authority. In the tradition of the Church, the authority of the Primate is part of the Church, its property so to speak. In Rome, today, the Church is part of the authority of the Primate, to the point that the very Body of Christ is not "legitimate" if not submitted to the pope. Can you imagine that? A bishop telling God where His Divine and Miraculous Presence is legitimate or not? That is not like disputing if God is there, which is sensible. It means admitting that He is and still it is "illegitimate". Even God is under the Pope's rule. Such is Rome today.

[Seda S.]

....

And to my surprise, no other than St. Peter himself did it! *He* was the person addressed, *he* received the Hoy Spirit who "explained everything".

St. Peter explains in the second chapter of his first epistle:.........

.... my conclusion is:

It was pretty obvious, from the Gospel, that the Rock was Jesus Himself. That is why the fathers when writing were delving into deeper misteries of the passage. St. Peter, in the mentioned passage, also explains that we are all rocks too. So, to me, St. Matthew 16:18 is one of the first theologies of the icon. We are image and strive for the likeness of God. He is CHRIST. We are CHRISTians, little christs. He is the Lamb. We are sheep . Similar, but not equal. He is Light of Light. We are the light of the world according to His own word. He is the Food from Heaven. We are the salt of the world. He is The Rock upon which the little rocks, us, are built. His body is the temple, we are the bricks.

So, in St. Matthew 16:18 it is revealed everything that all the Fathers have said: the Rock *IS* Jesus and Jesus only. The confession that Jesus is the Son of God is what turns us into "little rocks", so it is a rock in itself. And because St. Peter confessed it, he turned to be a rock at that moment at least, since right after Jesus also reproaches him. But while he was *in the confession* he was a rock.
....
.

What a wonderful post! I have copied it in a separate file to have it at hand in case I need to explain this matter to Catholics. Thank you, Fabio.

[Kseniya M.]

I wondered then how nice would it have been if we had a direct writing from one of the people involved in the event explaining the passage. Certainly one of the apostles would be the best source to understand.

And to my surprise, no other than St. Peter himself did it! *He* was the person addressed, *he* received the Hoy Spirit who "explained everything".

St. Peter explains in the second chapter of his first epistle:

I can see what you are saying here, but how would you respond to a Catholic who says that those two scriptures (Matthew 16 and 1 Peter 2) are not related and that Peter is not referring to his confession in Matthew 16 when he writes 1 Peter?

I ask because I'm the lone Orthodox in my household, surrounded by my Greek Catholic husband and children. My husband would probably say that the apostle is merely referring to and developing the themes of the first chapter of 1 Peter. I don't have a gift for apologetics, and I tend to merely bow out of such discussions with the phrase, "Just because I don't know how to defend it, doesn't mean it's wrong." Weak, I know, but well there it is.

Kseniya the Weak Lone Rang- er, Orthodox

[Herman Blaydoe]

I can see what you are saying here, but how would you respond to a Catholic who says that those two scriptures (Matthew 16 and 1 Peter 2) are not related and that Peter is not referring to his confession in Matthew 16 when he writes 1 Peter?

I ask because I'm the lone Orthodox in my household, surrounded by my Greek Catholic husband and children. My husband would probably say that the apostle is merely referring to and developing the themes of the first chapter of 1 Peter. I don't have a gift for apologetics, and I tend to merely bow out of such discussions with the phrase, "Just because I don't know how to defend it, doesn't mean it's wrong." Weak, I know, but well there it is.

Kseniya the Weak Lone Rang- er, Orthodox

Building a little, if I may, on the solid ROCK of Fabio's fabulos premise, it is also interesting to note, particularly in St. Peter's second epistle that he NEVER specifically claims the supremacy later accreted to his personage. And this would be a most appropriate place to do so, especially where he is speaking about submitting to authority. Why not throw in a "...as you submit to me, and I to Christ..." or words to that effect? wouldn't this be a perfect place and serve as a perfect example? And yet, NO WHERE does the holy Apostle himself claim to wear the mantle of "supreme vicar of Christ" and certainly never claims anything approaching infallibility, and yet his "successors" claim their authority from him. If he never claims such authority, how can they?

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain who will post no more on this topic.

Herman the Pooh

[Owen Jones]

Every Christian must first find the bishop within. That is to say, unless the mind and intellect and will have come into conformity with Christ, one will not be able to recognize true spiritual authority externally. Although it's one of those chicken or egg questions. Certainly one expects bishops to exert spiritual authority in the proper sense, and to guide us on the right path. But there is a huge problem for us when we wait around for the external authority to appear and tell us what we must do, or, if we think there is something terribly lacking in us absent some boss.

This idea, therefore, that there must be one "boss" of the whole Church for it to be on the right track strikes me as fundamentally flawed. And in Orthodoxy, we have a conciliar tradition in which no one bishop or partriarch governs or rules ex cathedra. But we might, by analogy, say that the person must have a conciliar tradition, that our individual members, mind, body, intellect, will, i.e. the spiritual and the somatic body, come into conciliar unity, for it to function as intended. Then and only then can we say that we are approaching the problem of authority from the right angle. And then and only then does the word "axios" have any practical meaning or significance.

As for Roman Catholics, I doubt seriously that a debate on this issue with them will carry much weight, if it is based on either historicity or Biblical interpretation. The Orthodox witness is that which recent Popes have already recognized, that in Orthodoxy we have preserved the inner mystical traditions of the Church, and the Church's teachings on asceticism and spiritual martyrdom, and much can be learned by Rome by our witness in this matter. In fact, there is some evidence that the present and past popes have had a desire for unity with Orthodoxy as a means of reviving Catholic "spirituality," so to speak. To save Roman Catholicism rom its triumphalism, by learning from "suffering" Orthodoxy. Of course, unity under the Pope would be a bit like Yugoslavian unity under Tito. So that's not something we should be interested in. We should, however, be interested in witnessing to our spiritual traditions that have been preserved, both in word and deed.

My words are cheap, of course. Some day I hope to be viewed by others as a Christian!

[Joshua G.]

I think we, as modern Orthodox, make the mistake of taking for granted that it even matters what this verse meant and who or what it referred to. Personally, I believe that the Catholics make a pretty good case that it also refers to Peter. I could be wrong along with many ECFs and you could be wrong along with many ECFs, but this has absolutely no bearing on what I think about Papal Infallibility (PI) or Universal Jurisdiction (UJ).

Trying to prove PI and UJ wrong by proving that Matthew 16 means X and not Z is a very protestant argument that I think is quite foreign to Orthodox exegisis (did I use that word correctly? did I mean apologetics???). We've borrowed it from post-reformation thought and this is the whole square peg in a round hole routine.

It's not that the argument that Matthew 16 means X and not Z is unOrthdox (nor do I beleive it is unOrthodox to believe it is Z rather than X), the mistake is somehow connecting the issues of PI and UJ.

I guess I'll ask this: if one believes that Matthew 16 is referring to Peter as the Rock (not only his confession, but the man Peter) does he or she inadvertantly support the contemporary Roman Catholic views on the Pope? If so, please explain using an Orthodox mindset (not Western Catholic arguments) why that belief necessarily leads to the ill-concieved doctrines of PI and UJ. If not, then why are we discussing this in the first place? If not, then when a Catholic comes in and uses this argument we should be saying "that's nice, but it's neither here nor there in this discussion." Right?

[Stuart Dunn]

But, it happened. Rome fell away (from our POV) for various reasons. That's the sad fact. I don't know if we Orthodox always appreciate how very sad that is. I don't know if we get how terrible the schism is for our Church. While it is true that Rome is not ready to come home, the attitude that we are fine without Rome is unproductive and misses the point. Yes, we are still the Church with or without Rome, just as my co-workers family is still a family despite their son having committed suicide. It's tragic and that's not hyperbole.

I was having this conversation the other day. Ask a Catholic who fell away from whom and the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church. Ask an Orthodox the same question, and you'll get the opposite answer. I am a convert, so I don't have much the same biases as cradle Catholics. However, I am also very naive to the situation. It is my understand (albeit limited) that the schism was more a growing apart on both ends, like an uppercase Y.

Who was more at fault? The West no doubt, but the East was not blameless just their offenses were minor compared to some of the ones the West did.

"Orthodoxy and Rome each believes itself to have been right and its opponent wrong upon the points of doctrine that arose between them; and so Rome and Orthodoxy since the schism have each claimed to be the true Church. Yet each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (None the less there is no action on the Byzantine side which can be compared to the sack of 1204.) And each side, while claiming to be the one true Church, must admit that on the human level it has been grievously impoverished by the separation. The Greek east and the Latin west needed and still need one another. For both parties the great schism has proved a great tragedy."

Source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx

[Joshua G.]

In my last post, in the middle of it, I said: "the mistake is somehow connecting the issues of PI and UJ."

What I meant was "the mistake is somehow connecting this verse to the issues of PI and UJ."

PI and UJ are obviously very interconnected.

Thanks.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I hope I can start a new thread here on the subject of who is head of the Church. I would like us to start from scratch and stay on this topic alone. It is my position that within the first millenium, the popes were considered head of the Church and the supreme ruler of the Church. However I am inclined to believe that currently the popes have lost this primacy. But a case can me made from the fathers and councils that it is impossible for Rome to lose the primacy because it's a divine primacy. I believe there must be a visible head for the purpose of safeguarding unity. Who is currently the visble head of Eastern Orthodoxy? It seems to me that a body without a head won't work.

Jesus Christ is the only supreme and infallible head of the Church, from the EO perspective. Even the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is really not the "visible head". He is the first ranking bishop among sacramental equals, but he exercises no doctrinal or jurisdictional supremacy.

[Eugenia Gotsis]

Jesus Christ is the only supreme and infallible head of the Church, from the EO perspective. Even the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is really not the "visible head". He is the first ranking bishop among sacramental equals, but he exercises no doctrinal or jurisdictional supremacy.

Christ is risen!

That pretty much sums it up neatly.

INXC

[Sean M.]

I had the same discussion with a group of Catholics, and it seems from the writings of the ECF's that there was no conformity regarding the interpretation of Matthew16:18. It didn't make sense for me for the Gospel writer to change the name in order to avoid giving Peter a feminine name.

I read through quite a lot of material from various ECF's and didn't see what i thought may have been the simplest explanation. The feminine word, "petra," was used in order to identify Christ, from which the Church was born as John Chrysostom states. The feminine was used because the Church is the bride of Christ.


“There flowed from his side water and blood”. Beloved, do not pass over this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolized baptism and the holy eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, “the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit”, and from the holy eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the Eucharist flowed from his side, it was from his side that Christ fashioned the Church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and makes him exclaim: “Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!” As God then took a rib from Adam’s side to fashion a woman, so Christ has given us blood and water from his side to fashion the Church. God took the rib when Adam was in a deep sleep, and in the same way Christ gave us the blood and the water after his own death.

Do you understand, then, how Christ has united his bride to himself and what food he gives us all to eat? By one and the same food we are both brought into being and nourished. As a woman nourishes her child with her own blood and milk, so does Christ unceasingly nourish with his own blood those to whom he himself has given life.

The symbolism however of Christ giving the name petros/kepha/cephas to Peter seems to be the same kind of symbolism used in the book of Genesis when Eve is taken from Adams rib, ie Peter is an intrinsic part of Christ's Church.

[Olga]

The feminine was used because the Church is the bride of Christ.



This is a fallacy. It is simply a matter of grammatical gender, something which the English language does not have. Ascribing theological meanings to words on the basis of their genders can lead to all sorts of problems, such as the Sophian heresies (Christ as Holy Wisdom being the "feminine" aspect of God). For instance, the gender in Greek of the Holy Spirit is neuter. Greeks have no trouble referring to the Holy Spirit as "It", nor is such expression seen as irreverent.

[Sean M.]

This is a fallacy. It is simply a matter of grammatical gender, something which the English language does not have. Ascribing theological meanings to words on the basis of their genders can lead to all sorts of problems, such as the Sophian heresies (Christ as Holy Wisdom being the "feminine" aspect of God). For instance, the gender in Greek of the Holy Spirit is neuter. Greeks have no trouble referring to the Holy Spirit as "It", nor is such expression seen as irreverent.

I'm not dogmatic on the issue, but it seems to me to be the simplest explanation. I could go into much greater detail supporting the idea, but i don't have time at the moment. What is heretical about referring to the Church in the feminine when it is done countless times in the bible?

[Vasiliki D.]

This is a fallacy. It is simply a matter of grammatical gender, something which the English language does not have. Ascribing theological meanings to words on the basis of their genders can lead to all sorts of problems, such as the Sophian heresies (Christ as Holy Wisdom being the "feminine" aspect of God). For instance, the gender in Greek of the Holy Spirit is neuter. Greeks have no trouble referring to the Holy Spirit as "It", nor is such expression seen as irreverent.

I'm not dogmatic on the issue, but it seems to me to be the simplest explanation. I could go into much greater detail supporting the idea, but i don't have time at the moment. What is heretical about referring to the Church in the feminine when it is done countless times in the bible?

Hey Sean, it is not heretical to refer to the Church in the feminine provided that people understand it is honourary and not a literal gender matter ... I am Greek and very fluent in Greek and can keep up with any academic merely through my nationality and reading experience over many years ... as such, I can definately support Olga's post since I understand what she is saying! It is hard to understand or fathom clearly how Greek works unless you are Greek I suppose so Olga is not wrong with what she is trying to explain to you ...

Grammatically, there are words that are "feminine" but do not imply a "female gender". This same logic also applies to grammatically "masculine" words that do not imply to a "male gender" ... a Greek is able to distinguish this intuitively without giving much thought to it - its an innate characteristic of our language - hence, why i am strongly wish that the Greek language would not be wiped out from the Orthodox community ... if everything converts to English we will lose so much buy relying only on the academics to explain the original texts ... but that gripe is for me to carry in my own heart and not for this thread .... Saint Kosmas the Aetolian intercede for our Orthodox community!

[Olga]

What is heretical about referring to the Church in the feminine when it is done countless times in the bible?

Because it is a grammatical coincidence that the word ekklesia is of the feminine gender in Greek. Regarding the Sophian heresies, some have argued that the second person of the Holy Trinity before the incarnation can be regarded in feminine terms, as this person is frequently referred to as the Wisdom (Sophia) of God. What would the Sophianists make of the fact that the Word of God, the Logos, is of the masculine grammatical gender in Greek, and of a variety of genders in many other languages, ancient and modern?

[Christopher Dombrowski]

such as the Sophian heresies (Christ as Holy Wisdom being the "feminine" aspect of God)

My understanding of the Sophian heresy that was condemned by the ROC was that it was actually being taught that Sophia was a feminine person distinct even from any of the three persons of the Trinity.

[Andreas Moran]

The Holy Spirit in Greek (to Aghio Pnevma) is in the neuter gender, grammatically. What does that make Him?!

[Paul Cowan]

The Holy Spirit in Greek (to Aghio Pnevma) is in the neuter gender, grammatically. What does that make Him?!

You should be asking "what does that make "it". Since God is nongender though we relate to Him as masculine. I think this takes us back to the "male and female in Christ" thread. (I don't think that was the real title, but we had a rather heated discussion on this there)

Paul

[Andreas Moran]

You should be asking "what does that make "it".

Ah, but He is a hypostasis!

[Ben Johnson]

Why do we need a visibile head?

[Christopher Dombrowski]

Ah, but He is a hypostasis!

And seeing as how the being in God is not connected with gender, it is entirely appropriate to refer to a hypostatically divine person as an it.

[Sean M.]

Hey Sean, it is not heretical to refer to the Church in the feminine provided that people understand it is honourary and not a literal gender matter ... I am Greek and very fluent in Greek and can keep up with any academic merely through my nationality and reading experience over many years ... as such, I can definately support Olga's post since I understand what she is saying! It is hard to understand or fathom clearly how Greek works unless you are Greek I suppose so Olga is not wrong with what she is trying to explain to you ...

Grammatically, there are words that are "feminine" but do not imply a "female gender". This same logic also applies to grammatically "masculine" words that do not imply to a "male gender" ... a Greek is able to distinguish this intuitively without giving much thought to it - its an innate characteristic of our language - hence, why i am strongly wish that the Greek language would not be wiped out from the Orthodox community ... if everything converts to English we will lose so much buy relying only on the academics to explain the original texts ... but that gripe is for me to carry in my own heart and not for this thread .... Saint Kosmas the Aetolian intercede for our Orthodox community!

I believe Petra is used 16 times in the New Testament, and in the majority if not all of the cases it is used in association with Christ, the other masculine noun used when referring to Christ is, "lithos."

Examples, Romans9:33, 1Corinthians10:4, and 1Peter2:8 amongst others.