www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Will the Real Rock Please Stand Up?

To all those who do not like these sort of discussions...

Why are you reading this thread?

I happen to like such discussions. Many (perhaps most) do not. That's fine.

It just seems this thread is becoming a waste of time to read with all the personal stuff going on.

Frustrated...Perhaps it's time to start a new thread for those of us who are interested in such discussions and want to talk about such things?

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I'm in! I thrive off discussions such as these.

ChristTeen287

P.S.- I tent to agree with Zoe here. Personalities need to be left out of this discussion as much as possible; let's examine the facts first.

Also, Mor Ephrem's post was informative without even touching on proselytism, and also took into account others' opinions and beliefs without "shooting them down." This is the kind of posts we need to keep this thread civilized and polite.

Dear Mor Ephrem:

Actually, from a highly technical perspective, ISTM that the "'just stand up and declare a teaching', without reference to the rest of the Church" scenario may very well be impossible, strictly speaking, within the declaration of Vatican I.

A declaration made entirely without connection to prior discussion within the church would imply the unfolding of new doctrine; there is specifically no claim of infallibility in such a scenario. An authentically infallible declaration would have as its motivation and foundation such prior discussions, and would thus include reference to the rest of the church.

Apart from this theoretical idea, we do agree that variety of mechanisms for counsel are enumerated within the proclamation.
The declaration is notably silent, however, on which if any of these mechanisms are employed in the formulation of a definition. It neither prescribes nor proscribes any particular mechanism. It does not explicitly state that the pope can pronounce infallibly outside of a council, nor does it explicitly state that he cannot.

Therefore, apart from my argument above, I agree with your highly theoretical point. I remain unclear about the significance of this extreme scenario. I will object, in general, to any characterization of the dogma that suggests that this extreme is normative or that the exercise of this authority entails caprice or tyranny. (Not that you have made such a characterization.) More importantly, I would like to suggest to you that the wide-openess of this declaration on the manner of formulating definitions leaves an enormous amount of wiggle room for conciliation.

djs

Christ is baptised!

(And I hope you brought home some blessed water.)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, ChristTeen.

Dear djs,

I can appreciate the fact that Vatican I does not allow for the creation of "new dogma" (I'd had this in mind when I wrote my last post), but only the infallible definition of what is already taught; hence, there would necessarily be a reference to the rest of the Church, in some way. But I did not mean that, and I'm sorry I may have given that impression.

What I meant was that the Pope could infallibly define what is already taught without necessarily having anything to do with the bishops. He doesn't "need" to call an ecumenical council. He doesn't "need" to ask for the opinions of the world's bishops (as in 1854 and 1950). He doesn't "need" anyone else; theoretically at least, he can do it on his own. But, the bishops cannot do any such thing apart from him (indeed, some of the documents concerning such things seem to imply that the bishops have no authority proper to their office that isn't delegated to them by the Pope...is the Pope a King and the bishops his ambassadors?).

There seems to be an imbalance here. Is the office of Pope by its nature, of its essence, in every way a higher office than that of Bishop? In the Church, are the orders Deacon, Priest, and Bishop, or Deacon, Priest, Bishop, and Pope?

The other day, I read something on EWTN's question and answer section that troubled me. Granted, EWTN isn't as infallible as Rome ( :p ), but still, they seem to do their homework, and so are authoritative insofar as the sources from which they learn what they say are authoritative. One of their experts wrote, and I do not have the exact quote (unfortunately I cannot locate it), but I think it was recent, that ecumenical councils operate at the pleasure of the Pope.

Since when?

This is what I have a problem with: the dogmas on the papacy seem to place the Pope over and outside the Church. They seem to make the Pope the ruler of all the Churches, rather than the one who presides in love.

Perhaps the reigning Pope is more of a presider than a ruler, but is that a function of office? I don't think so, for the office seems to be one of a ruler or at least have the power and authority of one; I tend to think it is a matter of this Pope's personality. If this is true, it means that there could be another Pope with quite a different personality, and yet just as legitimate an exercise of the "Petrine" ministry.

Dear Qathuliqa Mor Ephrem,

Actually, in the Syriac tradition it's "bishop, metropolitan, patriarch"

Then there's "deacon, priest, chorepiscopus." Am I right, Big Guy? (How is your Better Half and did you two have a nice New Year?).

Patriarchs and Catholicoi are certainly over simple bishops and other sacerdotal underlings, early Church notwithstanding.

The Pentarchy of the undivided Church assumed the pre-eminent role of the three and then the five major patriarchates at Councils.

Certainly, the RC Councils that are "universal" for the Latin Patriarchate are called at the pleasure of the Pontifex Maximus.

The Emperor is the one who called the Seven Ecumenical Councils (Ecumenical for the Roum or "Rome/Byzantium").

The Pope's role tended to take over a number of those exercised by the Emperor, as you know, in both the secular and the ecclesial spheres.

"Vicar of Christ" is not original with the Roman Popes but was the title appropriated by the Byzantine Emperor for himself.

The Popes of the Middle Ages did indeed see themselves as inheritors of the role of the Emperor, including that of convoking Ecumenical Councils which, by that time, was "Ecumenical" only for the universal Latin Patriarchate.

The whole issue of what is an "Ecumenical" Council in connection to the later councils (including the later four councils that the Roum consider Ecumenical but that the Oriental Orthodox do not) is an issue that perhaps a future union Council could settle.

The Roum Orthodox believe that the Seven Councils are normative, Rome believes that its additional 14 Councils are normative as well - Rome has yet to finely define what is being tossed about in open ecumenical debate alone.

I'm not trying to make you become a Catholic, as you are already an Orthodox Catholic (like me! ).

But those of us Orthodox Catholics who are in communion with Rome can't find a single thing in the later 14 Latin Councils that either a) add to what we already believe or practice; b) apply to us in terms of liturgical, ritual, canonical etc. forms; or c) change our long-standing theological traditions.

And if Vatican II and subsequent papal pronouncements are serious about the role of Eastern Patriarchs and Particular Churches in terms of self-government, and there is no reason to think they are not, then they clearly do impact and affect what Vatican I said about papal jurisdiction.

And the really nice thing about having a Pope who can convoke a Council of the universal Latin and other Churches in communion with Rome is that one can really HAVE a Council in one's lifetime!

Alex

"You don't know my motives. You are misrepresenting them. I am NOT, repeat not, trying to impose a Latin understanding of anything on you or anyone else. Rather, I want to see what the Bible and the Fathers (both East and West) say about Petrine primacy and specifically about the "Rock" issue. I want to examine the evidence and see where it leads us. Period." -Zoe

Dear Zoe,
That's fine. I never said anything about your heart, just your words. I notice that you refused my invitation to say with the pope, "I listen to the churches of the East, which I know are living interpreters of the treasure of tradition they preserve"??? This refusal, for me, is instructive.

you said:
"Could we kindly get back to this and leave personalities out of the equation?"

O.k.,
I can take a hint from others on this thread who think I'm wasting time discussing this issue. That's fine I've said my peace. I'll leave it alone after simply adding that if anyone thinks I am just being personal rather than addressing a specific issue of attitudes necessary for true ecumencial dialogue, you simply missed my point.

That's fine, at least a few on this thread recognized the real issue I was trying to address. But it was never personal.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

p.s.
Incidently, as for the issue of the Rock: I don't see what the big deal is if our Lord Christ is speaking about St. Peter and/or his faith? What dogma of belief of the Eastern Churches does this contradict if Christ speaks to St. Peter as being the Rock? I believe our Lord speaks of both St. Peter and his faith and that this is perfectly consistent with the Eastern approach to primacy.

Dear Ghazarian,

I'm sorry you have to suffer this on Armenian Christmas Day!

You are right, however.

It is St Peter as the Spirit-Bearer, inspired of God to confess Christ as He truly is that is the Rock spoken of here.

Alone, St Peter could do nothing.

Where, in the Scriptures, does it say Peter could even catch a fish without Divine help?

Alex

Ghazar,

No you're not. Your opinions are valued as much as anyone else's. Please don't let us dissuade you from further engaging on this thread.

I am sorry if I was offensive. It just seemed to me that you were focusing more on Zoe's approach as from her personality/attitude rather than her arguments. If this wasn't the case, I apologize.

Have a Holy Christmas!

ChristTeen287

Dear Alex,

Merry Christmas!

When I said what I said, I was talking about how Christ constituted the Church. There are three ranks in Holy Orders: deacon, priest, and bishop. Just as subdeacons, readers, and other orders below deacon are orders instituted by the Church and not essential to the Church, neither are "Patriarchs", "Metropolitans", etc. essential to the Church. These are all things the Church started; Christ didn't establish these things in starting the Church, as he established the ranks of Holy Orders. One may be a Patriarch or a Catholicos and thus above the "simple bishops" in some very real ways. But that Patriarch and the "simple bishops" are all equals because they are all bishops, and the episcopate is the highest rank in the Church, if we are talking fundamentals.

In studying the Catholic teaching on the papacy, I think I see the tendency to elevate the office of Pope to a height it had not enjoyed in the undivided Church. It is almost as if the office of the Papacy was instituted by Christ as a higher order than that of the episcopate: so why isn't the election/coronation/installation of a Pope a sacrament, or part of the one sacrament of Holy Orders?

Yes, this is probably true. But is that so bad? Certainly the "office" (is it properly termed that?) of deaconess is much less (or is it non-existent?) than it was in the undivided Church. These changes don't have to be negative, and can benefit the Church, IMO.

ChristTeen287

DJS,
I did'nt feel hostility towards myself personally,only my opinion.When we read scripture we interpret the reading in our own way, hope fully in the correct way. The forum is a way of communication to find something or express it.

Believe me, I was raised in a Polish/Italian Roman Catholic household and there were plenty of different ideas.

Respect for ideas gives ground for good discussion.

Peace in Christ,
James

Where in Catholicism does it say that Peter could do anything without divine help? Where in the documents of Vatican I or Vatican II does it say that Peter could do anything without divine help? Where has Pope JPII or any other pope ever said that St. Peter can do anything without divine help?

Why are you arguing against a position that no one has ever taken? Isn't that called "attacking a straw-man"?

Scratching head here....

ZT

Y'all, I still haven't gotten around to piecing together a cohernt response to Father Thomas's initial argument. And since I have a huge deadline at work (Jan. *), it doesn't look as if I'll get to it for a few days. Im the meantime, though, here are some sweet quotes from Eastern authors...just some grist for the mill. I'd like to read the books these quotes come from...had I but world enough and time!

Blessings,

ZT

---------------

"The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is an indisputable historical fact. No scientific or ecclesiastical value can be attached to the attempts of anti-papal critics to cast doubt upon this evident truth...."
-- Basil Moustaksis (Greek Orthodox), Vers l'Unite' Chretienne, April 1960

"[F]or the Patriarch Photius, as for the later Byzantine theologians, the polemical argument artificially opposing Peter to his confession did not exist. By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church. The Council of 879-80, which followed the reconciliation between Photius and John VIII, went even so far as to proclaim: "The Lord placed him at the head of all Churches, saying, 'Feed My sheep.'"
-- Father Jean Meyendorff in The Primacy of Peter, St. Vladimir's Press, 1992

"We may conclude that the early Church Fathers and Christian writers recognized Peter's position of honor and preeminence in the New Testament period. He was the spokesman for the group of the twelve, the leader, the shepherd, and the martyr. Their interpretation of Jesus' promise to Peter -- 'You are 'Petros,' and on this 'petra' I will build My Church' -- converge with those of modern exegetes: the rock is Peter."
-- Veselin Kesich, Professor Emeritus of New Testament at St. Vladimir's Seminary, also writing in The Primacy of Peter

"This primatus, this principatus, of the apostle Peter is not a temporary but permanent institution. He governs the Church visibly through his successor. The relation borne by Roman bishops to St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles, is a close reproduction, in its depths and in all it involves, of the consortium potentiae of St. Peter with Christ....In the same way the whole construction of the Church reproduces, according to Leo the Great, the diversity of the relations that existed among the Apostles. Though all were chosen equally, there was not equality of authority amongst them; so in the same way the Bishops, equal amongst themselves in sacerdotal dignity, are not so in canonical rights, nor are they equal in their participation in the Government of the Church. This administration over all the Churches is incumbent upon the Bishop of Rome, principaliter, ex jure divino [principally, by divine right]....The episcopatus universalis [universal bishopric] of the sobvereign pontiff of Rome, as taught by St. Leo the Great, does not exclude the equality of the hierarchy, that is to say, the sacramental equality, but only the plenitudo potestatis (the fullness of power]....[In the teaching of St. Leo the Great] all the Roman prerogatives of supremacy are to be found, exactly as they have been since defined by the [First] Council of the Vatican."
-- V.V. Bolotov (Russian Orthodox), Lektisii po Istorii drevnei Tserkvi, ed. Professor A. Brilliantov, St. Petersburg: 1913 (Emphasis added)

Zoe,

you said:
Where in Catholicism does it say that Peter could do anything without divine help? Where in the documents of Vatican I or Vatican II does it say that Peter could do anything without divine help? Where has Pope JPII or any other pope ever said that St. Peter can do anything without divine help? Why are you arguing against a position that no one has ever taken? Isn't that called "attacking a straw-man"? Scratching head here....

reply:
I can see why you're scratching your head. Alex never made an argument for or against anything. Why did you think that he did? Most of us know his position on Papal Primacy therefore, we didn't interpret his statement as an "argument" at all but rather as an affirmation of his faith.

In reply to your quotes, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Are these supposed to twist the Eastern Christian's arm to make him believe the Roman Catholic Dogma of Papal Infallibility or Universal Jurisdiction??? I'm not even in the Eastern Orthodox communion and can see that these can be easily answered.

I invite you to spend some time trying to understand where they are coming from on Papal Primacy. If you did, you'd probably see that these quotes aren't saying anything like what you apparently think they are.

qoute:
"The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is an indisputable historical fact."

The far majority of Orthodox affirm a Primacy to Rome without ever meaning it to mean what was taught at Vatican I. Therefore this quote is no shocker. The question isn't whether he had primacy. Rather it is what do we mean by "primacy." This is being discussed by theologians at the invitation of the Patriarch of the West.

qoute:
"The Lord placed him at the head of all Churches, saying, 'Feed My sheep.'"

Yes, no problem again. Perhaps you should study Fr. Meyendorff's understanding of this to see how he understood it. He obviously did not understand it in the way Roman Catholics do or else he would have become a Roman Catholic. He certainly didn't think "Feed my sheep" is Christ giving a teaching authority to the Bishop of Rome which is binding on the entire world.

qoute:
Their interpretation of Jesus' promise to Peter -- 'You are 'Petros,' and on this 'petra' I will build My Church' -- converge with those of modern exegetes: the rock is Peter."

reply:
Ditto.

quote:
The episcopatus universalis [universal bishopric] of the sobvereign pontiff of Rome, as taught by St. Leo the Great, does not exclude the equality of the hierarchy, that is to say, the sacramental equality, but only the plenitudo potestatis (the fullness of power]....[In the teaching of St. Leo the Great] all the Roman prerogatives of supremacy are to be found, exactly as they have been since defined by the [First] Council of the Vatican."

reply:
Everyone knows Pope Leo had a very high view of his Papacy (most Pope's did). This is not news to anyone either.

So the question is, 'What do you think these qoutes prove?' Perhaps you'll shed more light when you get time.

you said:
I'd like to read the books these quotes come from...

reply:
This is a very good idea. This helped me quite a bit. I used to think the East was so sadly mistaken. Then I decided that being they were intelligent people and Apostolic Churches and authentic interpreters of their own tradition as the Pope said, I should at least examine their beliefs and understandings a little. Obviously they have access to the same quotes of the Fathers we have, how on earth could they maintain such contradictory views of Primacy? The results for me certainly changed my life.

Now here's a very interesting qoute for those who have a big problem with the way the East has developed their concept of Primacy:

It is by St. Augustine who said:

“...as if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them: "Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed'” (Letter 43:19).

Sounds like Soorp Okosteenos (as he is called in the Armenian Church) held the Ecumenical Council to have more authority than that of Rome.

Finally, if you ever are interested in gaining a little better understanding of why the East believes what it does I have a very basic summary of some of the points they make regarding Primacy in the Church. See Principals of Primacy in Eastern Orthodoxy at:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/apologetics.html

Whatever you do, I do encourage you to try and get into their minds a little to understand them better. It will make for much more fruitful dialogue. And atleast exhibit you are looking for honest dialogue.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Have been reading this thread with great interest. My conclusion: If we really want unity, the Catholic and Orthodox laity and common clergy should lock their hierarchs, theologians and scripture scholars in a room until they hammer out an agreement--not only on this issue, but on whatever separates us. But is it unity that we really want, or is it our comfortable separateness?