www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Primacy of Saint Peter

I hear you. I didn't go there because I thought the debate on this thread was between primacy vs. no primacy at all.

Hi everyone,

I'm not here to debate anyone. I'm not here proselytising my particular Church either. The beauty about Orthodox and Catholics having a chat is ultimately you respect everything we respect. We only get a bit upset with you whenever we see sacraments not being taken seriously in your Church. Other than that, your welfare is not just important for us, but it is for us also.

To me, the primacy of Saint Peter is not even dogmatic. Its not a theological issue NOR soteriological! If Christ wanted Saint Peter has the head of the head on earth, then surely the tongue of fire would have just appeared on Saint peter's head on the day of the Pentecost to which he could have laid hands on the other apostles and ordained them.

On that day, on the day of the Penetcost, the Bride of Christ on earth was born. I didnt see any hierarchy then. I didnt see that the tongue of fire first appeared on St. Peter's head and then after a while, it appeared on everyone else's head.

Concerning the First Ecumenical Council - yes, the 1st, the one in Jerusalem (The Council of Jerusalem); it says in the Bible that all the Apostles and Elders gathered together to discuss the issue. What was the point of having a meeting/a council if the opinion of the other Apostles wasn't important? Why didnt they just go to Saint Peter and tell him "Peter, listen up, you're our head, what do we do?"

Its not required for my salvation to be under the Pope of Rome. Is it?

He who believes and is baptised is saved. There was no condition there about being under the Pope of Rome for that salvation.

I've spoken to MANY Catholics about this issue, and even some who claim to be theologians, and it appears to be the main blocking issue.

I could understand if the the show stopper was:

* Homosexuality
* Women priests
* Purgatory
* Baptism by faith alone
* No need for priesthood

But, out of all the issues, it is one that has no importance. No efficacy.

In fact, had we all been under the authority of Rome, we'd ALL be in a mess: we'd have left Orthodoxy, we'd have adopted the scientific explanations on how the Bread is transfered into the Body of Christ, and cornered ourselves.

We are a reference point for you to come back to.

We are a landmark to help you find yourselves again - especially at a time when you need it.

Beyond that, Peter did not even preside. That honor fell to James, the Brother of the Lord, head of the Jerusalem Church, which, as the Mother Church, had priority over all others. And, after all sides had presented their views, it was James who summarized and then issued a ruling to which all assented.

Another matter that always puzzled me is the relative status of the Pope vs. the Apostles. Let's just assume for the moment that Catholic tradition is correct, and that Linus did succeed Peter as head of the Church in Rome (that assumes, by the way, that there was just a single Church in Rome, and not at least two). St. John the Theologian was still around on Patmos, and would be down through the pontificate of St. Clement of Rome. If we take the notion that the Pope's status as "Heir of Peter" is the source of his primacy over the entire Church, does this mean that St. John would, of course, defer to them? Or does John's status as the Beloved Disciple, his personal commission by the Lord himself, and his intimate personal knowledge of Jesus Christ place him over or outside of whatever primacy the first century successors of Peter might have claimed?

"...preside....honor...head...Church of Jerusalem...Mother Church...priority...issued ruling..." It seems a rather developed ecclesiology is being applied, and that can suggest unwarranted, anachronistic conclusions. For the sake of argument, however, using the same ecclesiology, here is a case of a Pope, Peter, and a bishop, James, functioning in a collegial manner. And, after all, it was Peter who earlier in very primitive but highly significant settings, had taken the lead:

The Choosing of Matthias: Acts 1:15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,...22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us -- one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."

Choosing one to replace Judas as "a witness to his resurrection." Very significant, very foundational.

And the first "sermon" on the very day of Pentecost:RSV Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.

Think of it -- right after the descent of the Holy Spirit.

Hypothetical, non-obtaining situations are just that. In fact, as it has actually turned out, John was Apostle at Patmos, and Linus, Cletus and Clement Popes at Rome, and all functioned without incident and turned out quit nicely for the Church. Be puzzled no longer.

The Primacy of Saint Peter as held by the Syriac Orthodox Church (which I as a Syro-Malankara Catholic hold the same Syriac Tradition, and you as Coptic Orthodox are in full Eucharistic Communion) presented by His Grace Aboon Mor Thomas Athanasius, PhD:

http://www.syrianchurch.org/Articles/PrimacyofStPeter.htm

As I said, nobody disputes Peter's primacy, only what that primacy meant, and how it is exercised by those who claim to be his successors.

First of all the use of the words "under Rome" is highly charged.
One should use in communion with Rome.
There are also Patristic texts that support the idea of the primacy of the Roman see, "the Church which has preemminence and presides in love, also text which says the Roman see has never erred. They are countless.

No one wishes to make a conflict, but if we are going to speak about the subject lets get all the cards on the table at least.

Stephanos I

Actually did you know that tend my lambs is a bad translation.
It implies rule my sheep. That is why this text has been seen as supporting the Primacy of Peter.
Stephanos I

MGR. PIERRE BATIFFOL in his book Saint Gregory the Great comments on this quote of Pope St. Gregory the Great; the comment is in this post, link.

Thanos888 and anyother persons interested in the nature of the Roman Petrine Primacy,

If you take the time to read this article, it will explain how the 1st ecumenical council (Nicea), assumes the primacy of the Roman pontiff- and even rests on its authority to reaffirm the jurisdiction of the see of Alexandria and the other ancient sees of the Church. The fact that the Roman Pontiff's "custom" is used as a rationale against Meletius to affirm the jurisdiction of Alexandria and the other sees implies that the council acknowledged the authority of Rome above and over the other sees. So much for "first among equals". This article is written against Anglicans, however, its reasoning is still valid against the orthodox as well. Do take the time to read it thoroughly and honestly- I think you will find the arguments in it to be very convincing.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

Love of wisdom, you should be careful when make such statements as this. What edition of the Canons are you using? As early as ;late 4th century, church men knew that the Canons of Nicaea had interpolations in them on this issue. You should read up on the case of Apiarius; else where on this blog I noted:

it would do well for those in the west to review the case of Apiarius in North Africa. It was this event that caused St. Augustine of Hippo to tell the Bishop of Rome to stay out of the affairs of the church in North africa. I have referenced more details about good old Apiarius elsewhere on this site (https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=267189)

Do not fall into the trap of defining primacy in terms of jurisdiction. Primacy in the early Church worked on entirely different principles.

Dear brothers,

My apologies if I was not clear. I am all for Primacy within the Church. Whether one is catholic or orthodox, we have a hierarchy. There is leadership in the Church.

However, what exactly, dearest brothers, would you expect the Coptic Church to do when the head of the Catholic Church excommunicates us openly during a mass over the filoque?

What could we have done?

Your emissary, in 1054, went to the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople and during the mass, placed the bull of excommunication on the alter.

His final words, after removing the sand from his sandals, before leaving the Church was something along the lines of 'let God judge my actions'...

So, you excommunicated us, and now we are being punished for being ex-communicated?

If the Roman Catholic Church starts to add dogmas, left right and centre, then what exactly could those who refrain from such practices do??

Your priests no longer get married, in some Churches you give the blood and the Body, and some others you give only the Body. In some Churches in the RC you have become charismatic, in some others, there is so much traditionalism that even the traditionalist catholics RE-baptise anyone catholic wishing to become a traditionalist.

The Roman Catholic Church has clearly moved away from orthodoxy.

What did you want us to do with your dogma of "transubstantiation" ? Did you want us to apply this in our Church and scientify a mystery and confuse everyone?

What could we have done?

Was it REALLY worth excommunicating us over the procession of the Holy Spirit -whether He proceeds from the Father and the Son, or just through the Father?? Is it really worth it?

I can assure you that our pontiff (H.H Pope Shenouda) is not a figurehead. He doesn't thrive on power, but he holds firm to the responsibilities given to him.

His mandate is to keep the teachings of the Apostles that were handed to him. That's it.

So, he will be sincere to the teachings of the Fathers. If your pontiff goes off and creates dogmas that disagree with the Church fathers, even though you may have the right of leadership, we cannot go off and agree to it.

We just cannot.

We are the Church of Saint Athanasious the apostolic, Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory the Theologian, Saint Demiana, Saint Mark the Evangelist. We are the Church of Saint Anthony the monk, the father of all the monks, the one who founded monasticism.

What did you want us to do with our spiritual heritage? Ignore it for the sake of appeasing a leadership that, for us, was developing contradictory teachings to the Church Fathers who presided before him??

What could we do??

The hand of reconciliation is always there. But you cannot ask us to ignore our responsibilities. The Pope of Alexandria is mandated to keeping the faith and passing it on to someone else after him. He's really into innovation.

We do what we've always done in the Coptic Church.

That doesn't mean we are not ONE Church by the way!! Not at all.

If a father has 2 sons and both disagree, does it make one son less of a son than the other?? Can either son say that the love the father has for him is MORE or LESS than that for his brother??

However, God will judge us according to our hearts. We are NOT at all interested in having a split Catholic Apostolic Church like this; but it has nothing to do with pride, nor stubbornness.. it has to do with being responsible for what we were given; for what was handed to us.

For Pope Benedict XVI's views on primacy,(written while he was still a Cardinal)"The Primacy of Love":


an excerpt:

"The empty chair that points to the primacy in love speaks to us accordingly of the harmony between love and order. It points in its deepest aspect to Christ as the true primate, the true presider in love. It points to the fact that the Church has her center in the liturgy. It tells us that the Church can remain one only from communion with the crucified Christ. No organizational efficiency can guarantee her unity. She can be and remain world Church only when her unity is more than that of an organization--when she lives from Christ. Only the eucharistic faith, only the assembly around the present Lord can she keep for the long term. And from here she receives her order. The Church is not ruled by majority decisions but rather through the faith that matures in the encounter with Christ in the liturgy."

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_primacylove_dec06.asp

johnzonaras,

Why don't you read the article? It will be very good for you and I recommended it to ALL Eastern Christians. The version of the 6th Nicene canon that is used in this article is accepted as authentic by the whole of Christendom, and all Christians who accept the 1st ecumenical council. It just a matter of interpretation that is being discussed in the article. All other alternative interpretation fall short of the validity of this interpretation put forth. I know about the eastern objections to falsified canons- I almost became eastern orthodox about 10 years ago. However, this article is one of the main reasons I did not.