www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West On Roman Primacy

From Alex:

>>>Meyendorff... could see into the Roman Catholic heritage as well as his own and come up with conclusions that are useful to both.

He understood the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory as doctrines that could be "restated" from within both traditions.

Even on the matter of indugences, he never denied them or the Roman Church's right to use them, but only denied that the East would ever have a "system of indulgences."

So there is, I believe, a sense of a "generic" notion concerning what is implied by something like "indulgences" which is, to be sure, a Latin thing that is shared by the East.<<<

I have not read Meyendorff.

From the Orthodox perspective, there is indeed a "generic" sense of the doctrinal error of indulgences, and that generic sense is the efficacy of the prayers of the Church, and especially those of Her saints, for the dead. The idea of a "surplus" of grace, to be meted out indulgently, so as to be provided to those who have died [whether for money or not], is utterly not Orthodox, at least as I understand the matter. For one thing, the saints do not 'own' grace, and pass it out, nor is the idea of a 'surplus' quantity of this 'commodity' theirs for the 'handing out'.

I could very well be mis-understanding the RC doctrine of indulgences, but the simple and generic sense of them is that prayers from the Church for the dead are beneficial for the dead and for those who pray them...

Intercessory prayer leads to communion, plain and simple, does it not?

geo

Dear George,

Well, I don't like the use of the word "error" when a difference of perspective is what should be understood, disagreed with if need be, and then respected as such.

Yes, from the RC perspective, the saints don't "own" the superabundance of Grace that has poured out upon them.

But the Church can use its powers of "binding and loosing" in this regard and this is how it is understood in the West.

And again, indulgences seen as outpourings of mercy and grace for specific spiritual good works by God through His Church is a "generic" thing that has always existed in the Church. It is just that the West came to define in its own scholastic terms that was foreign to the East.

Again, Rome has come along way in terms of defining its indulgences and has simplified them into "Partial" and "Plenary" - a vast improvement over the breakdown into days and years.

Alex

Alex,


>>>Meyendorff... could see into the Roman Catholic heritage as well as his own and come up with
conclusions that are useful to both.

He understood the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory as doctrines that could be "restated" from within both traditions.

Even on the matter of indugences, he never denied them or the Roman Church's right to use them,
but only denied that the East would ever have a "system of indulgences."

So there is, I believe, a sense of a "generic" notion concerning what is implied by something like "indulgences" which is, to be sure, a Latin thing that is shared by the East.<<<

Please supply reference for this. I am Orthodox and am unaware of him or any other significant Orthodox theologian holding such a position.
But maybe with references I can follow-up and learn more about it.

Eric

Dear Eric,

You could begin with his "Byzantine Theology."

When I started reading Meyendorff, I went to the Anglican Book Centre that had an entire shelf of his books.

I pulled out each and every one they had and read them.

Thanks to Meyendorff, I converted from Latinized Eastern Catholicism to Easternized Eastern Catholicism.

I also exchanged correspondence with the great theologian while he was still alive on a number of points, including, would you know, the issue of Orthodox venerating (privately) those who were not formally Orthodox.

Fr. Serge Keleher, a very Eastern priest who was formerly Russian Orthodox, told me he could never get Meyendorff to respond to his letters.

I always began mine with "Bless me a sinner, Reverend Father Professor!"

I think that's why . . .

Alex

Dear George,

>>>Well, I don't like the use of the word "error" when a difference of perspective is what should be understood, disagreed with if need be, and then respected as such.<<<

Sorry, Alex - That was my ERROR of insensitivity and general dunderheadedness... I should have said that it would be error from the EO perspective. I apologize, and will try to do better!

>>>Yes, from the RC perspective, the saints don't "own" the superabundance of Grace that has poured out upon them.

And to highlight the differences of perspectives, I would guess, not having read all the Orthodox literature, that the EOs do not even recognize th4e category of "superabundance" of grace.

>>>But the Church can use its powers of "binding and loosing" in this regard and this is how it is understood in the West.

Alex, are you saying that the 'power to bind and to loose' given to the Church is what is exercized when indulgences are granted by the RCC? My goodness, I had never heard of such a thing...

>>>And again, indulgences seen as outpourings of mercy and grace for specific spiritual good works by God through His Church is a "generic" thing that has always existed in the Church. It is just that the West came to define in its own scholastic terms that was foreign to the East.

Could you give an example or two? I am failing to recall any instances of specific spiritual good works [by saints?... by a relative of the deceased?] that resulted in outpourings of mercy and grace, in the first millennial Church. I've got a feeling that I have misunderstood you...

>>>Again, Rome has come along way in terms of defining its indulgences and has simplified them into "Partial" and "Plenary" - a vast improvement over the breakdown into days and years.

Gosh, I guess I am just plain unfamiliar with the Roman development of this doctrine. Did they used to give days and years 'off' from purgatory, but now they give either partial or full days off? I am sorry to be so dense, but it just sounds so, well, so scholastic and legalistic!

What would be a 'specific spiritual good work' that might result in an outpouring of grace and mercy? It really does sound strange to this Orthodox catechumen's ears!

geo

Dear George, Sir!

No problem!

Yes, the power of binding and loosing is certainly involved with the granting of indulgences.

The RC perspective is that there are two types of punishment meted out for sin, eternal and temporal.

Confession, of course, deletes the eternal thing .

Scholastic theologians of the RC tradition, however, and I am oversimplifying here to be sure, understood "temporal punishment" as a specific reference to the need for life-long penance for our sins.

The Orthodox tradition agrees here, not with temporal punishment, but with the need for life-long penance "Lord have mercy on me a sinner" and the "podvig" or struggle to discipline our fallen nature in the overall experience of Theosis.

The various works for which indulgences or cancellations, whether partial or complete, of the temporal punishment due to sin (which would have to be suffered in purgatory if we didn't do enough penance for it here) RESEMBLED the canonical penances the Church, especially in the East prescribed for particular sinful infractions, as the Rudder lists.

For example, it was not enough to confess the sin of, say, masturbation. In addition, the Church, East and West, prescribed particular penances for it. I understand that this particular sexual sin could result in the defrocking of a cleric at one time.

In any event, the Church did prescribe all manner of penances for specific sins deemed very serious or "unnatural" what have you. Confession of these beforehand was presupposed. But in addition to absolution, the penances were a necessary follow-up for them.

The West, being more pragmatic and rational than us mystical Easterners began to reflect on what kind of an effect these extra penances, over and above confession, had on the sinner.

And how do you reconcile the fact of the sacramental validity in cancelling out sin that the Mystery of Confession most certainly had WITH the notion that added penances are prescribed for specific sins in particular?

The West evolved a notion of a "double punishment for sin."

The eternal punishment, the one we incur for having offended an eternal Being, God, can ONLY be taken away by God directly and in Confession.

But there is the temporal punishment associated with sin as well, the kind of punishment Adam and Eve suffered after their Original Sin that involved the temporal experiences of suffering, death, having to work, concupiscence etc.

There was a "temporal debt" that needed to be paid by the sinner through penance, in addition to the acceptance of death as the punishment for sin, eternal and temporal.

(As a matter of fact, the ultimate indulgence or cancellation of all such penitential debt as defined by the RC Church is when, at the point of death, a Christian thinks on the Cross of Christ, his or her sinfulness, pronounces or thinks the Name of Jesus or the Jesus Prayer and submits to God's Will concerning death as punishment for sin.)

The Roman Church and local Bishops began prescribing penances of 100 days hard labour, 300 days hard labour or penitential works, just like those prescribed in the Canons of the Ecumenical and Local Councils of the universal Orthodox Catholic Church of the first millennium.

But then it prescribed certain prayers by the authority of "binding and loosing," that could replace the 100 and so on days of pentitential exercise.

Ejaculatory prayers were heavily indulgenced and reciting the Name of Jesus or the Jesus Prayer formerly had an indulgence of 300 days assigned to it by Papal authority. This meant that the Grace of 300 days of penitential activity, such as was had in the former days when penance was painful and serious business, was to be had in sincere praying of the Jesus Prayer.

Now, how much Grace, as the Administrator said so wisely (don't you just love him? ) on another thread - we have no idea.

The Roman Church was pelted with criticisms of legalism in this regard, so it changed the days' to "Partial" and "Full" indulgences.

Although the East wouldn't understand this in this way, and wouldn't use "indulgences," the fact remains that penance, even penance over time, as prescribed the Canons remains in force.

An Orthodox priest may still prescribe a special penance for a great sin, including, by the way, excommunication for a time.

The Celtic Church, which was definitely not Roman, prescribed fasting and the recitation of 50 Psalms when a person missed the Sunday Liturgy, as another example.

Orthodox asetics take second place to none in punishing the heck out of their bodies.

There are the "chain-bearers" wearing heavy chains on their bodies, the fasters and every conceivable punishment devised by holy people and imposed on themselves to punish themselves for their sins committed and for their sinfulness, to aid in their transfiguration in the process of Theosis.

It is just that the Roman Church added a view notions to "explain" what is going on with all these penances, even after we've been to Confession . . .

Eastern Catholics and Orthodox alike must be committed to life-long penance and we pray "have mercy on me a sinner" until our dying breath.

If anything, the Eastern Church is still into the "pain" thing with respect to penance moreso than the West that has relegated a lot of that to specific prayers etc.

For example, a partial indulgence is granted for 15 minutes of Scripture Reading. It becomes plenary or full when it is 30 minutes of reading.

It is assumed that Confession and Communion is made and received by the penitent and that prayer for the Holy Father's intentions is also made. Detachment from sinfulness is also presupposed and since this is hardly realistic for most of us, the indulgence becomes partial rather than plenary in most cases.

Again, the Roman way of doing things is only for those who are "in Rome."

Penance, spiritual struggle and the Podvig of Prayer always lie in front of us on the road to Christ and His Kingdom.

Oops! I just tripped on my soap-box, darn thing . . .

Alex

My Dear Alex -

Thank you for the most wonderful explanation I could have ever asked for regarding these issues. If no-one else chimes in to the contrary, I am going to have to assume that you are speaking the mind of the RCC. I just had no idea...

You wrote: "The RC perspective is that there are two types of punishment meted out for sin, eternal and temporal. Confession, of course, deletes the eternal..."

I just am blown away... So the matter is one of sin and punishment, and praying or reading scriptures or psalms or obtaining an indulgence is so as to avoid punishment? Have I got this right? I have never heard of anything even remotely like this in Orthodoxy. I am stunned!

"Scholastic theologians of the RC tradition, however, and I am oversimplifying here to be sure, understood 'temporal punishment' as a specific reference to the need for life-long penance for our sins."

Penance being equivalent to punishment? So that if we live a whole life in punishment, we are saved?

You continue: "The Orthodox tradition agrees here, not with temporal punishment, but with the need for life-long penance "Lord have mercy on me a sinner" and the "podvig" or struggle to discipline our fallen nature in the overall experience of Theosis."

Askesis is for the acquisition of self control and mindfulness of God, not for punishment of sins... The podvig is often harsh because it needs to be because of our knuckle-headedness in forgetting God on a second to second basis. The wearing of a heavy chain welded around one's waist and safely out of sight is not to punish the wearer for sins, but by the everpresent pain of the weight to remind him second to second that his whole attention is to be on God. And this is not for everyone, or even for anyone, and especially not for anyone who just wants to wear a heavy chain, but is a gift of God, granted to a few as an obedience to theri spiritual father, at the behest of the Holy Spirit, and nobody else should ever even know that they have such a thing...

And then you ask: "And how do you reconcile the fact of the sacramental validity in cancelling out sin that the Mystery of Confession most certainly had WITH the notion that added penances are prescribed for specific sins in particular?"

The penance is not at all punishment for the penitent who has committed the sin, but is a course of penance designed specifically to help the penitent remember not to re-commit the same sin. The penance is a gift... A holy aid in the effort to which we are called to live a life of repentance from sins... It is in absolutely no way [that I know about at least] a punishment for having committed the sin, which would be looking backward, but is an aid in not committing the sin again, looking forward.

No wonder I am soo aslog in your words!!! Man, I just had no clue whatsoever... Thank you for cluing me in...

geo

It was a slippery soapbox, Alex.

You did a great job of staying on target, as usual. That was as masterful an explanation of the teaching of the Latin Church in this area as I've seen. It was interesting hearing it related to the teaching and practices of the East.

We rational Latins have this thing for understanding, you know! It's what led to our "brief" excursion into Scholasticism.

Things get really complicated when we try to explain what we understand to those of a more mystical bent!

Enjoy.

Steve

Dear George,

I just wanted to add a segment of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the consequences of sin. In it there is a brief discussion of the idea of temporal punishment that is a consequence of sin. I hope that it helps a bit.

The part that seems most appropriate to point out, following your reply to Alex, is:

"These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no PUNISHMENT would remain."

That sounds like what you understand to be the continuing need for conversion. There has been discussion here about the teaching about "toll houses" to explain the continuing cleansing that is needed for sinners after death. The Latin Church developed the theology surrounding purgatory to explain the same concept.

I think that the mysteries of sin and its consequences in us and death and what happens after it have been of interest to Christians. We see now through that glass that St. Paul talked about. So, our explanations about what we see are expressed in the theologies of the various churches.

The reality is so transcendent that we cannot, at least in my estimation, really capture it in our words. But, we keep trying. It's one of the beauties of learning about the various Churches to get differing glimpses, don't you think?

Steve

Here's the segment of the Catechism from which that was taken.

1472. "To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the 'eternal PUNISHMENT' of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the 'TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT' of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no PUNISHMENT would remain.[Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.]"

By the way, you can access the Catechism at www.christusrex.org [christusrex.org] or by typing the name of the Catechism into a search engine.

Dear Alex,

Excellent explanation of the historical development of indulgences! I'm beginning to read Meyendorff starting with "Imperial Unity." I like his perspective and attitude of fairness. Next I plan to get "Byzantine Theology." Thanks for the recommendations.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Something interesting on Yakov Kratov's page:

http://www.krotov.org/engl/history/16/undulgenc.html


Comments?

djs

[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

It is my understanding that sygchorochartia were, at least in their original conception, not much like indulgences at all. Rather, when confessors and/or spiritual fathers would hand out pennances to repentent sinners, these sometimes included the requirement of going on a pilgrimmage (many pilgrimmages to the Holy Land were in fulfillment of such requirements) and fulfilling some rule of prayer or spiritual exercise, fast, or whatever when one got there. Since the confessor or spiritual father was not there to observe, it became customary for a priest, monk, or elder to ensure that the penitent fulfilled the requirements of his pennance before going home. He would provide the penitent with what amounted to a "certificate of completion", which would then be shown to the confessor back home, who would then determine if the pentitent could be readmitted to communion. With improvements in modern transportation and communications, as well as changes in Orthodox disciplines regarding pennance, the use of sygchorochartia declined, and may have passed into effective desuetude (which does not mean that the concept has been invalidated or superseded).

I have no doubt that, over time, and particularly during the Counter-Reformation, that attempts would be made to show a congruity between sygchorochartia and indulgences, but the theology behind them was very different indeed. For one thing, the entire purpose of indulgences is the remission of temporal punishment for sin, something lacking in Orthodox soteriology. For another, this is accomplished through the overflowing of graces among the saints, which presupposes the idea of grace as a created substance, something also lacking in Orthodox spirituality.

As to the origin of the concept of "temporal punishment" and the related doctrine of indulgences, some very useful information can be found in Volume I of the massive "History of Private Life", that covers classical antinquity and the early Middle Ages.

Inawe writes from the RC Catechism:

"These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin..."

Well, I do not consider my pain from stubbing my toe to be a punishment, but this catechesis apparently does, yet would seem to prefer to consider it a non-vengeful punishment, flowing as it does from the very nature of my very own actions.

And why call it punishment? This leads to a whole theology of sin and punishment, rather than sin and repentance...

"A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no PUNISHMENT would remain."

God saves whom he will, if that is what this means... I am very wary of the referent might be of "a fervent charity" -

>>>That sounds like what you understand to be the continuing need for conversion.

Living a life of repentance is what you call here a "continuing need for conversion"? The holiest of the Fathers regard themselves as the worst of sinners - At least in Orthodoxy - And have done so for some 2000 years now... Our very ascendance in the faith rests upon our continued repentance, as we are given to see more and more of what we need to repent from...

>>>There has been discussion here about the teaching about "toll houses" to explain the continuing cleansing that is needed for sinners after death.

The "toll house" theory [of a series of accusations by demons following death] is not a core teaching of Orthodoxy, and never has been. It is a theologoumenon only, and does not seem to be related all that much to purgatory. I do not know enough about both theories to talk all that intelligently about either, so I really have to step back here... The one seems to be punishing you for your sins to cleanse you after death, and the other seems to stop you from attaining to heaven after death because of an unanswered accusation. Beyond that I know nothing at all... And I don't even really know that!

>>>I think that the mysteries of sin and its consequences in us and death and what happens after it have been of interest to Christians. We see now through that glass that St. Paul talked about. So, our explanations about what we see are expressed in the theologies of the various churches.<<<

By way of contrast, Orthodoxy does not see any great mystery in sin. Sin is common, banal, and ordinary. We are dead in our sins, and they feel real good on us. We know just how to get what we want.

For the Orthodox, the mystery is the intervention of Life into our sinful lives... The mystery of Repentance, of Confession, of Communion - These are the mysteries. And as Christians we are called to repentance, and the greater our repentance, the better Christians we become. We are called to become experts in rooting out and turning from our sinfulness... We, who were dead in our sins... The reality of sin in our lives is overwhelming, were it not for Christ's Divine intervention.

>>>The reality is so transcendent that we cannot, at least in my estimation, really capture it in our words.<<<

Sin??? No, you must mean "what we see in our [various confessional] theologies." I would guess that I am only just beginning to see a little of what others see, and the RC theology of sin and punishment definitely seems very different from the EO theology of sin and repentance.

For the EOs, [enough] punishment for sins committed is not repentance. Repentance is the mindful turning away from the temptations of sin, thereby acquiring further awareness of it, all the while calling on the Name of the Lord, in a never ending till death effort of becoming more and more one with our savior...

And this idea that the sins we have committed requiring first forgiveness and then punishment on earth, and then if not enough on earth then the remainder in purgatory, is not in any Eastern Orthodox teaching of which I am aware.

The difference between the two Churches seems to be radically apparent right at this juncture of the nature of sin and what is needed as a consequence of our sinning... The RCs need to punish sin, the EOs need to repent from it, and do not see punishment as payment for having sinned... They instead see forgiveness [the setting aside] following confession as payment, whereas RCs see this as but the first step of the process which has a divine mandate to punish the penitent for his or her sins that Christ has already forgiven.

Do I really have this right? It just sounds strange... Like I am missing something really important in RC doctrine here... Is penance really punishment and thereby payment for a sin already committed? This seems so, so... secular... At least to me...

geo

Dear Geo,

I commend you on your openess and attempt to understand where Roman Catholics are coming from. Being formerly a Roman Catholic, I have a basic respect for many of their teachings. This is even though I don't believe in them under the same terms and understanding.

But understanding is a good thing to have, especially among the ancient Christian Churches. There is much information out there if your looking to gain a better understanding of these topics. James Akin does a very good job of explaining Roman Catholic ideas and beliefs. You might want to look at some of his stuff on the web and in books if you are serious about understanding Roman Catholic perspectives.

I just want to add one thing to this discussion about the Roman Catholic idea of "Punishment." This comes from a note in the official "Handbook of Indulgences" which is similiar to the ancient books called "penitentials" which Alex referred to. Except these are suggestions to the faithful of what works they can do as pennances to gain indulgences.

This is from the Apostolic Constitution "Indulgentiarum doctrina" (1967) by Pope Paul VI.

First of all, as for where the idea of punishment came from, it was at least present from the time of St. Augustine in Latin Christianity (and maybe before):

See Augustine, Enchiridion 66, 17: "Many things seem in this life to be forgiven and to go unavenged by punishment, but their punishment is being kept for the hereafter. For it is not in vain that the day of which the judge of the living and the dead is to come bears the name 'judgment day.' On the other hand, some things are avenged in this life, but if they are remitted they wil cause no suffering in the world to come. Thus with regard to certain temporal punishments exacted of sinners in this life, St. Paul advises those whose sins are pardoned how to avoid such punishments being stored up until the end: 'If we would judge ourselves we shoud not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord that we should not be condemened with world." (1 Cor 11:31-32)".

I think their idea is that all wrong doing must be atoned for as much as in our ablity. Just as if you broke someone's window, you would not just tell them you are sorry, but you would do something more to help make up for that wrong (if you really are sorry). Just so sin has damaging effects that must be righted as much as is in our ability. These damaging effects are on our neighbors as well as on our own souls. Its like there is a spiritual and social consequence to sin. The social we can correct by doing something positive to right the wrong. The spiritual we correct though acts of pennance, etc.

Augustine goes on to explain the role of suffering, "We are obliged to suffer in this life even after our sins have been pardoned, although orignial sin was the reason why we have fallen into this plight. For punishment lasts longer than sin so that sin is not regarded lightly, as would be the case were the punishment ended without the end of the sin. Thus even when sin no longer holds us bound to eternal damnation, temporal punshment still is binding on us, either as a sign of the misery we have earned, as a corrective against a sinful life, or as an exercise in the patience we need" (In lo. Ev. tract. 123,5)

The example of St. Tavit (David) is given to demonstrate this:

"And David said to Nathan: 'I have sinnned against the Lord.' And Nathan said to David: 'The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die." 2 Sam 12:13-14 (LXX 2 Kings 12:13-14)

Finally what do Latin Catholics mean by punishment??? Here's an excellent explanation from the same Apostolic Constitution (which is a must read to understand the Latin Christian doctrine of indulgences):

"Since sin is an act that lacks due order, it is clear that whoever sins is in conflict with some kind of order. Therefore the sinner is repressed by that order. Such repression is what punishment is." (ST 1a2ae, 87.1)

Remember, I am not defending Latin Catholic beliefs just attempting to present them fairly, as Alex has done so well. Although, I do believe that the Roman Church is being consistent with its own historic tradition and as such should be respected by Eastern Christians.

IN Christ's Light,

William Der-Ghazarian

Dear Brothers,

I think things are getting a little confused (at least in my own mind ). We are posting on indulgences in the "On Roman Primacy" thread and I've been posting questions for StuartK about Roman Primacy on the "Formula of Pope Hormisdas" thread.

In attempt to re-orient (no pun intended) this thread back to the burning question I have, I'd like to re-post something and continue the former discussion of Roman Primacy which I began this thread with.

I contend that Rome, in much of her teaching about the Papacy, is only being consistent with the traditional understanding of the Papacy in Latin Christianity. I could be wrong, I know. So, Stuart has said we need to re-look at many of the qoutes about or from the Popes to understand if indeed the Latins are being faithful to at least their own tradition.

So far we have discussed the Formula of Pope Hormisdas and the statement by St. Irenaeus of Lyons. I'd like to continue on looking at the other statements by or about the Popes of Rome. What do you make of this powerful statement by Pope Damasus I:

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: 'You are 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 kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Here's a refernce to St. Matthew 16 in referrence to Roman Papal authority which I believe was denied to have taken place by Orthodoxyordeath. I thought he said no Roman Pope appealed to this text as referring to Roman Primacy.

This statement by Pope Damasus shows me that Rome had a very different view of her authority than the one which is being advanced by some Eastern Catholics and Orthodox on this forum. StuartK and friends what is your understanding of this particular decree?

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian