The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Deacon Christopher, Eldho Kuriakose, Nixon, SHolmes, Luan
5632 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 149 guests, and 218 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,819
Posts412,381
Members5,632
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: Primacy of St. Peter [Re: Theo777] #420010 05/05/20 09:03 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 574
U
Utroque Offline
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 574
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Hi Theo777, you are assuming that any fathers who did state what seems like Roman primacy meant that such a primacy exists forever, without exception. Just one or a thousand quotes stating primacy, does not show whether or not the Saint meant this in the context of Rome retaining the faith during that moment, compared to other Sees who'd had heresies in the Saints day; or if there was another reason for the statement. It also does not show whether this view held an "eternal" Roman primacy, or whether if such a heresy falls at Rome and Peoria, IL held the faith, whether the primacy would move to Peoria.

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


That really begs the question: Who holds the real Faith? Are you suggesting some kind of "Primacy" drift, as if it all depends upon who is holding the real faith? No, of course not. And that is not what St. Maximus is writing about at all, when he writes about Rome and the Apostolic See, IMHO. While the text may not "prove" the Roman Primacy; it certainly lends support to it, and I think one has to acknowledge, at least, that much.

Re: Primacy of St. Peter [Re: Theo777] #420011 05/06/20 03:29 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,542
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,542
Christ is Risen!!

I believe that we are doing here what the Catholic Church, on the one hand, and the other Apostolic Churches non-in-communion with Rome and ecclesial communities have been doing: talking past each other because everyone has a different idea of what the primacy ought to be in practice.

If the meaning of primacy is that the Bishop of Rome has a primacy of honor and is a court of last resort for certain matters--according to some ancient canons--then the Churches non-in-communion might agree. If the idea is that the Bishop of Rome has full and personal jurisdiction in every diocese and eparchy the world over and all other bishops are his suffragans with titles that are no more than honorifics, then not so much.

The idea that the Bishop of Rome appoints all bishops is something of a novelty. Prior to the 20th century, bishops were sometimes appointed by the sovereign of the nation in which he lived. Then there was the hereditary veto exercised by the Austro-Hungarian emperors over papal elections that was terminated by Pope St Pius X as his first official action as pope. The primacy as exercised today in the Catholic Church is not the primacy exercised in early centuries. The schism that came to a head with Cardinal Humbert, though brewing ahead of his unfortunate visit to Constantinople, had some of the developing idea of a universal jurisdiction in the West that was completely alien to the other Churches.

Pope St John Paul 2 of thrice blessed memory asked the other Apostolic Churches and ecclesial communities to join the Catholic Church in coming to a common understanding of what the primacy should look like and how it should function. So far, there has been little done that I am aware of.

A statement by Bishop Mar Awa Royel of the Church of the East probably sums up the position of the Apostolic Churches non-in-communion with Rome at this time. He writes "By divine design beyond rthe grasp of men, The Church of the East is the autocephalous and continuous Church of the Middle East, India, Central Asia, and China. It would be a violation of the orthodox and catholic Faith, as manifested throughout the ages, to consider this tradition as belonging to the Roman See, or any other outside jurisdiction, claiming canonical jurisdiction over the Church of the East." " . . . communion of the Ancient Churches . . . must be according to the most ancient and Apostolic models, and never subjecting a more ancient tradition to the modern circumstances of the West."

I copied Bishop Mar Awa's full text from the internet but it is in a picture form that does not allow me to cut and paste it here.

Bob

Last edited by theophan; 05/06/20 08:35 PM. Reason: clarity
Re: Primacy of St. Peter [Re: theophan] #420012 05/07/20 08:19 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 574
U
Utroque Offline
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 574
Originally Posted by theophan
Christ is Risen!!

I believe that we are doing here what the Catholic Church, on the one hand, and the other Apostolic Churches non-in-communion with Rome and ecclesial communities have been doing: talking past each other because everyone has a different idea of what the primacy ought to be in practice.

If the meaning of primacy is that the Bishop of Rome has a primacy of honor and is a court of last resort for certain matters--according to some ancient canons--then the Churches non-in-communion might agree. If the idea is that the Bishop of Rome has full and personal jurisdiction in every diocese and eparchy the world over and all other bishops are his suffragans with titles that are no more than honorifics, then not so much.

The idea that the Bishop of Rome appoints all bishops is something of a novelty. Prior to the 20th century, bishops were sometimes appointed by the sovereign of the nation in which he lived. Then there was the hereditary veto exercised by the Austro-Hungarian emperors over papal elections that was terminated by Pope St Pius X as his first official action as pope. The primacy as exercised today in the Catholic Church is not the primacy exercised in early centuries. The schism that came to a head with Cardinal Humbert, though brewing ahead of his unfortunate visit to Constantinople, had some of the developing idea of a universal jurisdiction in the West that was completely alien to the other Churches.

Pope St John Paul 2 of thrice blessed memory asked the other Apostolic Churches and ecclesial communities to join the Catholic Church in coming to a common understanding of what the primacy should look like and how it should function. So far, there has been little done that I am aware of.

A statement by Bishop Mar Awa Royel of the Church of the East probably sums up the position of the Apostolic Churches non-in-communion with Rome at this time. He writes "By divine design beyond rthe grasp of men, The Church of the East is the autocephalous and continuous Church of the Middle East, India, Central Asia, and China. It would be a violation of the orthodox and catholic Faith, as manifested throughout the ages, to consider this tradition as belonging to the Roman See, or any other outside jurisdiction, claiming canonical jurisdiction over the Church of the East." " . . . communion of the Ancient Churches . . . must be according to the most ancient and Apostolic models, and never subjecting a more ancient tradition to the modern circumstances of the West."

I copied Bishop Mar Awa's full text from the internet but it is in a picture form that does not allow me to cut and paste it here.

Bob


Indeed, He is Risen!

It is not my impression that posters are talking past each other in this thread. Poster have been responding in an honest and forthright way as to how they feel about the issue, and I always try to add my voice in the hope of keeping this once very active forum alive. I think as the thread has developed it is not so much a question of the nature of primacy, or just how it was exercised; it is rather a question of whether Primacy existed at all in the early Church, and whether it was localized in a particular place or places. It is my humble opinion that there is very strong evidence from St. Ignatius in the second century, from Ecumenical and local Councils and from Church Fathers of both east and west, that primacy was, indeed, exhibited, most emphatically at the See of Rome, and that the Bishops of Rome saw themselves as successors of St. Peter. Of course, that Primacy has been manifested and exhibited differently in different times, and St. John Paul II was quite correct to invite Christians to reexamine how that primacy might be nuanced to reflect a reunited Christendom, but the good Bishop Mar Awa Royel seems to deny that the Bishop of Rome had, and still has, a Primacy that I feel is amply manifest in the documents of the early Church.

Re: Primacy of St. Peter [Re: Theo777] #420013 05/07/20 09:03 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,542
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,542
Christ is Risen!!

I was not able to type out the entire, nuanced statement by Bishop Mar Awa Royel. My intention was to pose another viewpoint. I thought that the original poster's thrust was to bring up an issue that is a touchy one for the Eastern Churches non-in-communion with the Bishop of Rome. We should also be aware that The Church of the East, though showing respect for St Peter and his successors, operated outside the borders of the Byzantine Empire where most of the thought about the primacy and the debates over it developed. Given their history as being under constant suspicion of being a "fifth column" in another empire, they probably have not developed a position we would recognize given our Churches' positions within the Roman Empire.

The thrust of His Grace's position is that his Church has developed its own historical, liturgical, theological, and spiritual Tradition that has little reference to far away places or ideas about primacy and many other things. OTOH, his Church has maintained the Faith received from the Apostles who evangelized that region.

Re: Primacy of St. Peter [Re: Theo777] #420014 05/07/20 10:35 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 574
U
Utroque Offline
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 574
Indeed, He is Risen!

Having been "out of union with Rome" myself for a number of years, I am in complete sympathy with Bishop Mar Awa and the Eastern ethos he espouses; on the other hand, Rome has not only in word, but in action, expressed in recent times that same respect , admiration and sympathy for her separated eastern brothers of all churches, bar none. That same feeling for the Western tradition has not always been reciprocated. I honestly do not see how the jurisdictional Primacy of Rome, exercised collegially and synodically, would threaten any of those glorious traditions in the Church. By the way, it was that lack of reciprocity, exhibited by my Orthodox brothers, that brought me back to Rome.

Re: Primacy of St. Peter [Re: Theo777] #420015 05/07/20 11:33 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,542
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,542
Christ is Risen!!

I agree that there is some need for a primacy that has something more than an honorary place holder. When I post these other things that I have come to read and have tried to understand, I follow a saying that my high school class took as our motto: "Would that some Power would give us the gift to see ourselves as others see us." It's humbling to take the other person's stance and really look back, asking if I have had something to do with that stance by them.

I think it might also be instructive to understand that the Catholic Church dealt a real blow to our own ecumenical efforts in a case that involved The Church of the East in the last decade or so. A certain bishop was defrocked by The Church of the East, but was received as a bishop by the Chaldean Catholic Church, its Eastern Catholic counterpart. The argument revolves around the Augustinian vs Cyprianc interpretation of clerical orders. The Church of the East was offended that the Catholic Church would recognize a man who was defrocked and take him in as a bishop. Ecumenical cooperation has suffered tremendously as a result. Bishop Mar Awa Royel is bishop in California and this whole affair happened in that area. Currently the bishop so received has been given a Chaldean Catholic diocese in Canada.

The Church of the East feels that their tradition and canonical order was disrespected. This may have sparked the article I referred to.

Re: Primacy of St. Peter [Re: Theo777] #420016 05/08/20 01:04 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 574
U
Utroque Offline
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 574
I am not that familiar with the case, but I wonder if this was Rome's doing or the Chaldean Church seeking its own interests and seeking Rome's support. Apparently, Bishop Soro is esteemed by the Chaldeans and his ecumenical spirit is most welcomed by them as it was not by the Syriac Church. Hard to know the truth. Oh, well. I think the Bishop Ireland/St. Alexis Toth affair offers a more tragic and long-lasting outcome. Moving forward is difficult, but moving backward offers nothing.

Re: Primacy of St. Peter [Re: Theo777] #420017 05/08/20 02:21 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,588
Michael_Thoma Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,588
My earlier post seems to add more confusion than clarity on the issue of primacy of St. Peter's See (note: St. Peter's See includes Rome, but also Antioch, and Alexandria - each of which have also claimed Peter's Primacy over other jurisdictions, which cause friction in those other jurisdictions); and this confusion arises because it's always been a muddled sort of primacy in action which eventually works its way out.

Even in regard to the Assyrian Church of the East - a church which holds St. Peter's primacy as absolute - does not consider Rome to be the full representative of St. Peter's authority. BUT, at one time it did; before one part didn't. Before two parallel Catholicates did and another did not. Before the two rivals merged into the Chaldean Catholic Church, and what's now the Church of the East was of the faction in union with Rome.

Same issues are alive regarding St. Peter's primacy in Antioch with regard to the Church of Malankara - one part of the Malankara Church accepts Antiochian Primacy absolutely, while another only limited. The third Catholic faction accepts Peter's primacy resides in Rome, while also highly esteeming it's Syriac and Greek Catholic sister Churches Patriarchs of Antioch (Maronite, Syriac, and Melkite). The Anglican faction claims to accept the Syriac Patriarch without actually accepting his spiritual or temporal authority, but they are verbally friendly when he arrives.

Last edited by Michael_Thoma; 05/08/20 02:24 PM.
Re: Primacy of St. Peter [Re: Michael_Thoma] #420018 05/08/20 09:32 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 574
U
Utroque Offline
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 574
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
My earlier post seems to add more confusion than clarity on the issue of primacy of St. Peter's See (note: St. Peter's See includes Rome, but also Antioch, and Alexandria - each of which have also claimed Peter's Primacy over other jurisdictions, which cause friction in those other jurisdictions); and this confusion arises because it's always been a muddled sort of primacy in action which eventually works its way out.


Speaking of the "Primacy" drift that I alluded to in a response I gave to you in a previous post on this thread, it is my understanding that St. Peter took the Primacy with him, so to speak, and it was the early Church's understanding that it was passed on to a successor bishop of Rome where he was martyred along with St. Paul. The Sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem had a precedence after Rome, in that order, because of their association with St. Peter and his ministry. I feel this explains why Pope St.Leo vehemently objected to Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon for he felt that it misrepresented this ancient precedence that underscored the Petrine origins of these Sees, especially that of ancient Rome, and had nothing to do with the Emperor's presence or absence as Constantinople seemed to be asserting. Alexandria ended up leaving the Council over doctrinal issues, but I am sure they were also deeply troubled by their loss of precedence on account of, what they felt, was Constantinople's usurpation.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3