www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Not-so-Petrine Texts

In his book, �The Development of the Papacy,� (1954) H. Burn-Murdoch lists several New Testament passages which are called the Petrine texts:

(1) Matt xvi, 15-19: �Thou art Peter� (The Rock and the Keys)
(2) John xxi, 15-17: �Feed My lambs, feed My sheep�
(3) Luke xxii, 31, 32: �Confirm they brethren�

H. Burn-Murdoch lists additional texts which challenges the traditional Roman Catholic interpretation of those texts. Now, I know there will be some who say "Hey! Stop the prooftexting." Yet the three Petrine Texts are Prooftexts in themselves. So ... I wish to include a few more texts to get a bigger picture of the role of Peter.


First, there are those passages which suggest �� that the same power and authority was confirmed by our Lord on all the apostles.� (p. 54) They are:

(1) Matt xix, 28
Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

(2) Luke xxii, 29,30
and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

(3) Matt xviii, 19
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

(4) John xx, 22, 23
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

(5) Eph ii, 19, 20
So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

(6) Rev xxi, 14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.


Second, there are those passages which suggest �� that the other apostles were unaware that St. Peter had jurisdiction over them.� (p. 55) They are:

(1) Mark ix, 33, 34
And they came to Caper'na-um; and when he was in the house he asked them, "What were you discussing on the way?" But they were silent; for on the way they had discussed with one another who was the greatest.

(2) Luke ix, 46
And an argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest.

(3) Mark x, 35, 37
And James and John, the sons of Zeb'edee, came forward to him, and said to him, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you." � And they said to him, "Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory."

(4) Luke xxii, 24
A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.


Third, there are those passages which suggest �� that the Holy Ghost alone is the Vicar of Christ; that if our Lord appointed any human Vicar, He would have said so.� (p.55) They are:

(1) John xiv-xvii �, especially xiv, 15, 17, 26; xv, 7, 13

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments. � even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. � But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.


Fourth, there are those passages which suggest �� That the early Apostolic Church was unaware of a supreme authority in St. Peter.� (pp. 55-56) They are:

(1) Mark viii, 29, 30
So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. � Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.

(2) Luke ix, 20, 21

(3) Acts viii, 14
Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama'ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,

(4) Acts xi, 2,3
So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, "Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?"

(5) Acts xv, 6-19
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, 'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.' Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,


Fifth, there are those passages which suggest �� the equal authority of St. Peter and the other apostles.� (pp. 56-57) They are:

(1) Gal ii, 6-14

And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) --those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do. But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

(2) 2 Cor xi, 5
I think that I am not in the least inferior to these superlative apostles.

(3) 2 Cor xii, 11
I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these superlative apostles, even though I am nothing.

(4) 2 Cor xi, 28
And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches.


Sixth, there are those passages which suggest �� that St. Peter did not claim to have been given and individual authority or jurisdiction.� (p. 57) They are:

Search the entire New Testament and let me know in Peter's epistles and the Gospel of Mark (written for Peter?) where Peter gives us reason to believe that he was given individual authority and jurisdiction.

Elias, the Ninny



[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 08-16-2000).]

You knew I would have to bite on this one, Elias ;-D. I have references for the citations I make below, if anyone needs/wants them.

First, I should answer forthrightly the question, Are there passages in the New Testament that seem to run against a Petrine primacy of authority? Sure. Absolutely. Of course. Is this fatal to the Catholic position? No. There are passages in the New Testament that seem to run against the deity of Christ. That is why we have sacred Tradition and the voice of the living Church to guide us.

That being said, the passages cited below can be harmonized with a Petrine primacy.

>> First, there are those passages which suggest �� that the same power and authority was confirmed by our Lord on all the apostles.� <<

The passages cited in support of this contention do not prove what is being asserted for them. They do prove what the Catholic Church readily affirms, viz., that the Apostles were all specially chosen by our Lord, that they will sit on twelve thrones, that they and the prophets are the foundation of His Church, and that they all received the Holy Spirit in order to have the power as priests to forgive sins and consecrate the Eucharist and that they all passed this power on to their successors, etc. All of these things are reaffirmed in the new Catechism and they are part of the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church; no Catholic may deny them.

But none of these passage deny that one of the Apostles had a primacy of authority. That would have to be addressed by comparing these with other passages. It's both-and, not either-or.

>> Second, there are those passages which suggest �� that the other apostles were unaware that St. Peter had jurisdiction over them.� <<

In the passages about "the greatest" what the Lord never does say is that there won't be one who is greatest or the leader. Indeed, He specifically says that there will be "the greatest" and "the leader"; but He insists that he who is the greatest and the leader must be the servant of all. This the Popes have too often failed to do. But it does not negate the fact that there is a greatest and a leader in the Church.

It's also not entirely safe to argue from what the Apostles did not seem to understand prior to the Lord's resurrection. As the Gospels make abundantly clear, they were a little slow on the uptake.

>> Q: Was Peter�s primatial authority promised first only to be conferred after the Resurrection? <<

I think this is so. St. Peter was a leader pre-resurrection, but I think the formal primacy devolved on him post-resurrection. He became the visible head of the Church only after Christ ascended into heaven.

>> Q: Did the Apostles understand a promise of jurisdiction over them? <<

An interesting question, complicated by the fact that the Apostles were all saints and inspired by the Holy Spirit and so there was not need of the same kind of acts of jurisdictional authority over them that became necessary in later Church history as things began to fragment.

>> Third, there are those passages which suggest �� that the Holy Ghost alone is the Vicar of Christ; that if our Lord appointed any human Vicar, He would have said so.� <<

I would contend that he did say so, by invoking Isa 22 in connection with Matt 16:18. Certain Fathers say so too: E.g. St. Ephraim the Syrian says, "Peter deservedly received the Vicariate of Christ over His people." And the Syrian liturgy says, "Here is Simon, whom the Lord thrice called upon (saying): "Feed Me My rams and My gentle sheep. I entrust thee with the keys of My spiritual treasury, that thou mayest bind and loose on earth and in heaven. I will install thee Vicar of the heavenly kingdom; rule justly, and govern the children of thy household (the Church)."

>> Q: Does �Feed my Lambs� imply a universal office of jurisdiction? Sts Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, and Cyril interpret this thrice command to feed the sheep as the undoing of the three denials, thus �� restoring him to apostleship.� <<

Sure they did. But the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive. For example, St. John Chrysostom also says in relation to John 21:15ff.: "And withal, to show him that he must have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the Presidency over his brethren. And He brings not forward that denial, neither does He reproach him with the past, but says to him, 'If thou love Me, rule over the brethren; . . . and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing at what price He sets the Presidency over His own sheep. And if any one should say, How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?�this I would answer, that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher; not of that throne, but of the world."

>> Fourth, there are those passages which suggest �� That the early Apostolic Church was unaware of a supreme authority in St. Peter.� <<

(1) Mark viii, 29, 30 Silence does not make a case. The Gospel of Matthew is equally inspired as the Gospel of Mark and it says what it says. [Note: I think the text cited for this citation above is not correct.]

(2) Luke ix, 20, 21 Ditto.

(3) Acts viii, 14 This no more disproves a primacy of St. Peter than this remarkably similar passage proves that the Jewish high priest held no primacy: "[W]hen Festus had given them leave so to do, they [the Jews] sent ten of their principal men to Nero, as also Ismael the high priest, and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasure" (Josephus, Antiquities, 20:8:11).

(4) Acts xi, 2,3 Why should a primacy of authority place somebody above criticism?

(5) Acts xv, 6-19 See below.

>> Q: Did Peter really �preside� at the Council of Jerusalem as the Supreme Ecumenical Pontiff? Q: Who was the one to pronounce judgement as president at the Jerusalem Council? <<

According to Tertullian, St. Jerome, and Theodoret the doctrinal decision was St. Peter's (which would make the judgment of St. James a disciplinary or "canonical" application, which the context suggests that it was. Indeed, when St. James makes his pastoral application he cites two authorities, Scripture and Peter.) St. John Chrysostom also indicates that St. Peter's decision was doctrinal in nature, but he also says that St. James presided at the Council, so that's a mixed bag.

>> Fifth, there are those passages which suggest �� the equal authority of St. Peter and the other apostles.� <<

(1) Gal ii, 6-14 Several of the Fathers note that St. Paul rebuked St. Peter precisely because his lofty standing in the Church made his behavior such a scandal.

(2) 2 Cor xi, 5 St. Paul was not inferior with respect to the apostolic office of which he had a full measure. But if this be taken as absolute (not inferior in any way whatsoever) then it conflicts with the passages cited above that only the twelve will sit on thrones to judge Israel. But it would not be appropriate to speak of the bishops as the inferiors of the Pope anyway.

(3) 2 Cor xii, 11 Ditto.

(4) 2 Cor xi, 28 St. Paul could be "anxious" for all the churches without having jurisdiction over them all. But he's probably only talking about those churches for which he personally is responsible for pastoral care; "all" does not always mean "all" in St. Paul (hey, that rhymes! ;-D).

>> Sixth, there are those passages which suggest �� that St. Peter did not claim to have been given and individual authority or jurisdiction.� Search the entire New Testament and let me know in Peter's epistles and the Gospel of Mark (written for Peter?) where Peter gives us reason to believe that he was given individual authority and jurisdiction. Q: Where was the idea of infallibility or sovereignty or jurisdiction over the other apostles? <<

This is like asking someone to prove the papal primacy from the Pope's encyclical letter Redemptor Hominis, which begins with the salutation "Venerable Brothers and dear sons and daughters, Greetings and the apostolic blessing" and treats a topic that does not touch anywhere on the primacy. St. Peter did not trumpet his primacy because a) he was humble and b) it was unnecessary.

>> Q: Couldn�t �Firstness� refer to initiative, leadership, and spokesmanship instead? <<

Sure. In fact, it does. But this does not exclude the firstness as also referring to authority. Again, it's not either-or, it's both-and.


I'm probably going to sign off this board and leave you guys alone soon; it's not my intention to stir up trouble. It's difficult to cite evidence in such a forum without appearing to proof-text and yet, a debate is worthless without evidence, so I've tried always at least to back up my arguments with something substantial. But I don't want to beat a dead horse.


[This message has been edited by Vincent (edited 08-16-2000).]

Vincent --

I think the issue, which has been discussed here before (notably by StuartK), is what the nature of "primacy" is. No Eastern Orthodox deny that there is such a thing as Roman or Petrine Primacy -- so trying to have drawn-outr discussions about whether there was a belief in a Roman or Petrine Primacy are really pointless because in actuality both East and West confess this.

The question is, given that, what does it mean -- what is the content of that Primacy? That's where the views begin to diverge. Stuart has expressed previously the distinction between "autoritas" and "potestas" -- namely the distinction between "authority" and "power" -- with the former being the understanding of the early church, and the latter being its gradual mutation, particularly in the West. In terms of substance, "autoritas" would refer to the authoritativeness, the respect, the deference, given to Rome -- when Rome spoke, everyone listened -- noone ignored it -- people may have not always agreed, but Rome was "heard", with some degree of deference, even a unique degree of deference -- not completely uncritically, of course, but with deference because she was seen as having an authoritativeness. "Potestas" would refer to the transmutation of this authoritativeness, this respect and deference, to juridical, jurisdictional, supra-primatial power - the ability not just to speak with authority and receive respect and deference, but rather the ability to enforce one's will in the face of disagreement. That is quite different from autoritas, because it makes the basis for autoritas (authoritativeness, deference, respect -- all coming from the brethren) irrelevant, and supplants it with unilateral power over the brethren. In a world of potestas, autoritas becomes largely irrelevant, except as a theoretical basis or justification for exercising potestas.

Our views are always colored by the lens through which we look. Many Eastern Fathers clearly speak very strongly of the authority of Rome -- that can't be doubted. But what the history of the early church tells us is that this authority was not conceived of in jurisdictional/potestas terms, but rather in authoritativeness/autoritas terms. Too often, this is conflated by Papal apologists eager to utilize references to Roman "authority" to demonstrate patristical support for Roman "jurisdiction" -- two very different concepts, really. And, of course, too often Orthodox apologists try to brush over the many complimentary things that were written about Rome during the first millenium period. Both views are mistaken, in my opinion. Rome enjoyed clearly recognized "autoritas" during this period (as we can see from the Fathers), but did not enjoy "potestas" (as we can see from the way that the Church functioned).

Brendan

Hey Brendan,

I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, I don't have time to interact fully with your comments. I would point out that Orthodox scholars like Schmemann and Meyendorff acknowledge that authority [Grk: exousia] has a necessary component of power; indeed, they often translate exousia as "power." In a nutshell, I don't think your categories are as tight and exclusive of each other as you're making out.

I would be interested in your comments concerning my analysis of the 6th EC in the other thread; I put out a lot of material there but nobody saw fit to address it.

Vincent,


�� none of these passage deny that one of the Apostles had a primacy of authority. That would have to be addressed by comparing these with other passages. It's both-and, not either-or.�

Elias: The Apostles were a different class from the bishops. In fact, until the transfer of the main capital to Constantinople (New Rome/Old Byzantium), Peter was never listed as the first bishop of Rome. Peter AND Paul founded Rome. In response to the capital transfer the West began accentuating Peter in absence of Paul. The West also began relying on the principle of �apostolicity� and not political �accomodation� (to use Dvornik�s terms) because of the loss of prestige in their city. Peter eventually became the first �Bishop� of Rome. The Apostles were the New Jerusalem, a society not demarcated by geographic limits. Peter (and Paul) was for the Church of Rome as much as for the Church of Ephesus or the Church of Edessa. The Episcopacy was a �pastoral� ministry having a domicile. Can we really transfer an Evangelical and Apostolic ministry such as Peter�s to an episcopal ministry? The powers of the apostolic brethren was shared amongst all bishops. Would you say that the current jurisdictional model that Rome has with the Eastern Catholics is authentic or ideal? Should the Eastern Orthodox be in "submission" to some Congregation? I get worried when I hear Westerners continually mention "submission," "primacy," "supremecy," etc. At times, I feel as though I am talking to a member of some supremicist group. The only difference is that Roman Catholics don't wear arm-bands.


�In the passages about "the greatest" what the Lord never does say is that there won't be one who is greatest or the leader.�

Elias: Your argument is a fallacy. It is wishful thinking and doesn�t prove anything. Eastern Christians have always been concerned about the nature of Christ, thus the Ecumenical Councils. The Western Church has always been concerned about the nature and/or role of the Pope of Rome. Did you know that during the debates at Vatican I some RC bishops tried to claim that the Pope was an incarnation of Christ? Many hymns in the West, which were addressed to the Holy Spirit, were changed to be addressed to the Pope. It gets sick after a while.


�Indeed, He specifically says that there will be "the greatest" and "the leader"; but He insists that he who is the greatest and the leader must be the servant of all. This the Popes have too often failed to do. But it does not negate the fact that there is a greatest and a leader in the Church.�

Elias: Please provide a reference to this. Is this greatness not offered to all? Wasn�t Jesus more concerned about one�s faith abilities and not one�s leadership abilities? It seems to me that Paul was the real leader of the Christian movement. His epistles became the cornerstone of Christian life, and neither he or Peter wrote a Gospel that is today canonical. Peter was hard-pressed between Paul and James. But it is not leadership but faith which becomes the model of primacy. When Peter�s faith failed he either sunk in the water or denied Christ. Why does this primacy of faith and love have to translate into a supremacy of universal jurisdiction? Of course, the Ecumenical Fathers recognized the importance of Rome�s faith. This was its role. Peter�s faith was the foundation of the Church, the New Jerusalem. None of the Ecumenical Councils were ever convened by a Pope with all of his �jurisdictional� authority; in fact, the Pope many times had to ask permission from the Emperor.


�It's also not entirely safe to argue from what the Apostles did not seem to understand prior to the Lord's resurrection. As the Gospels make abundantly clear, they were a little slow on the uptake.�

Elias: Luke understood well that Peter was commissioned to be in charge of the mission to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Nothing there to imply Peter�s primacy over Paul. The church realized that the extreme forms of Jewish ministry (James) and Gentile ministry (Stephen) was unsuccessful.


�St. Peter was a leader pre-resurrection, but I think the formal primacy devolved on him post-resurrection. He became the visible head of the Church only after Christ ascended into heaven.�

Elias: Why did the tongues of fire on Pentecost descend upon all 12 Apostles equally? No special charisma was noted with Peter. In fact, some Byzantine icons of Pentecost depict Mary, the Theotokos, seated in the center of the Apostles! A typology of the Church? Yet no one has made her Pope or one with special primacy even though she was/is the Theotokos.


�� the Apostles were all saints and inspired by the Holy Spirit and so there was not need of the same kind of acts of jurisdictional authority over them that became necessary in later Church history as things began to fragment.�

Elias: As things began to fragment? What kind of reasoning is this? What was the Council of Jerusalem all about? Why was Paul commissioned to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews? Because they all got along? Immediately after Pentecost we see four distinct groups of Christians: (1) the extreme Gentiles � exemplified by Stephen, (2) the moderate Gentiles � exemplified by Paul, (3) the moderate Jews � exemplified by Peter, and (4) the extreme Jews � exemplified by James. They were all murdered. The extremists were stoned early on (a Jewish punishment); the moderates were crucified later (a Roman punishment). Did any one of them recognize a jurisdictional authority over them? How did the church address �fragmentation?� It set up special ministries, hence the deacon Stephen et al to look over the needs of the Hellenist-Christians.


�Sure they did. But the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive. For example, St. John Chrysostom also says in relation to John 21:15ff.�

Elias: Let�s consider the case of Chrysostom�s appeal to Rome. Many Westerners use this to prove his �submission� to the Pope. (Some folks love words like submision, primacy, supremacy, and obedience) But this quick conclusion misses how exactly the appellate process worked among squabbling bishops. We must remember that John Chrysostom appealed to several bishops in the West and not just Rome. Actual practice in �jurisdictional� matters might not stack up. And when the Pope was singled out, he naturally responded by convoking a council � in order not to act alone.


�How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?�this I would answer, that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher; not of that throne, but of the world."

Elias: James was �brother of the Lord.� It helps the resume.


As for your other comments, I will address later.

Elias, the Ninny

How utterly Protestant all of this prooftexting is. No historical perspective, no attempt to understand how the Church lived. Totally Western, on both sides--legalistic, rationalistic, reductionist. Ultimately, fruitless, as the pitiful dialogue between Rome and the Protestant denominations shows. Rome has, in its 500 year battle with the heirs of Luther, adopted exactly the same methodologies and criteria of its opponents, and in the process, has lost its ability even to converse intelligably with the Eastern Churches. We use the same words, they mean different things. What you consider important, we consider trivial or irrelevant. Our concerns you dismiss out of hand. There are times I could pull my hair out.

For, you see, all of you people--Elias and Vincent both--are arguing things which the theologians and even much of the hierarchy reached agreement on many years ago. Everybody knows what the historical record is; nobody any longer contests the fact that the papacy today is a much mutated version of what it was in the time of Gregory the Great. Nobody considers such matters as papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, original sin, created grace, or any of the host of red herrings which people like to trot out to create artificial differences between the Churches, to be of any critical importance. WE HAVE MOVED ON. WE ARE NO LONGER CONCERNED WITH REDUCING FAITH TO A SERIES OF SIMPLISTIC FORMULAE. WE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH BEHIND THE STATEMENTS, RECOGNIZING THAT ALL SUCH FORMULATIONS ARE IMPERFECT ATTEMPTS OF HUMAN MIND AND LANGUAGE TO COMPREHEND AND EXPRESS THE INFINITE.

The only matter of consequence that separates the two Churches is the matter of jurisdiction. Is the Pope a bishop over all bishops? Or is he the first bishop? Increasingly, theologians and hierarchs alike believe the latter.

The problem then, is not with the theologians, or even with the ordinary bishops, but with two well-entrenched and somewhat incongruous groups: the Curia Romana on the one hand; and the ordinary faithful (Catholic and Orthodox) oon the other.

The obstructionism of the Curia is understandable once one concedes that an ecclesiastical bureaucracy is still a bureaucracy, driven by Parkinson's Laws, and mainly intent on its own perpetuation. If there is such a thing as an immortal being on this earth, then a bureaucracy comes the closest to filling the bill.

The problem of the faithful is more problematic. These are ordinary, pious people who take their faith seriously, but have never been particularly well catechized. Recognize that catechesis in the preconcilliar Catholic Church was, by its own admission, based on rote memorization of some hard-and-fast rules (mainly designed to keep one out of hell). On the opposite side, catechesis of the Orthodox faithful too often is a catch-as-catch-can approach, with most of it taking the form of mystagogy through liturgical services that many do not attend on a regular basis (how much is missed when we skip Orthros and Vespers, and Saturday Liturgy!). Many of the formal catechetical manuals either ignore the doctrines of the Catholic Church, or provide an outdated and caricatured presentation. Much of what Orthodox Christians know about the Catholic Church can be classified as hearsay, gossip, and scurrilous innuendo. Old attitudes die hard. Many Catholic faithful still think of the Orthodox as schismatic and dissident Orientals, and the Orthodox Church as having "left" Rome in the 11th century. Many Orthodox seem to focus on 1204 to the exclusion of all else.

When the faithful of one side argue with the faithful of the other, it amounts to nothing more than a battle of wits between two unarmed competitors. There is little effort to understand, much energy expended "scoring points".

Everyone thinks he has the magic bullet that will finally lay the other out cold, but the sad and sorry fact is that there is no such bullet, because neither side is entirely right, and neither side is entirely wrong. The entire matter of the separation is a highly complex set of phenomena, tied to many tangential issues, and one who has not studied the history, sociology, economics, and culture of the period, together with the theology, is trying to read a book while only looking at the odd-numbered pages. I don't see many people here ready to put in the required labor.

So, here is the bottom line: nobody is going to resolve the matter of the papacy here. Nobody is going to heal the schism by their very own selves. Those who truly desire the unity of Christians need to start LISTENING to each other, not for openings to a counterpunch, but to really try to understand.

Catholics--remember, Catholicism does not revolve around the papacy, and the Petrine Primacy is a pastoral ministry which must change with time to meet the needs of the Church and its mission.

Orthodox--remember, the Catholic Church really isn't at the head of some world-wide conspiracy to suppress Orthodoxy. Remember that there has always been a distinct Latin Tradition, which has always differed from the Byzantine Tradition in many significant ways. For 1000 years, they managed to coexist. They can coexist today.

To both Orthodox and Catholics:

The Church is bigger than both of you. A Church with claims of ecumenicity can be neither exclusively Latin nor exclusively Byzantine. There are Traditions outside of your own, some of which are considerably OLDER. When we learn about all of the Traditions that make Christianity a house of many mansions, and learn to respect those Traditions not only for how they agree with us, but also for how they differ, then we will be on the road to real communion in the Holy Spirit.

I find it interesting that one of the best posts I've seen on this topic ends with: What I find interesting is this seems to indicate that there are only two poles in the Catholic Church -- Byzantine and Latin. Now, in general, Latin Catholics think they are the only Catholics there are. It appears that Byzantines know they're Catholic, but can't ignore the 2,000 pound gorillia called "Latin." Yet, does this mean we forget the Syrian Churches? What about the Armenian Churches? The Copts? The Ge'ez Church?

I suspect the failure to list these was due to focusing on the immediate participants. However, we need to remember that the Church is always much bigger than we think it is, and encompasses far more variations in praxis, theology and worship that one can really imagine.

Fr. Deacon Ed

Stuart,


�How utterly Protestant all of this prooftexting is.�

Elias: Aaaahh, yes. Prooftexting. Why is it when a Roman Catholic preaches the so-called Petrine Texts it is called �defending the truth,� but when someone plays by their own Protestant game it is called �prooftexting?� Why can we only recognize prooftexting when others besides Catholics quote the scriptures? Do only Catholics of the Latin tradition have a monopoly on making mountains out of one bible quote? The purpose of my thread was to show how scripture can also take the opposite interpretation of the Petrine ministry if bible verses are isolated in themselves. You are also correct that we should not reduce faith to a series of simplistic formulae. Obviously, my point in all these threads has not been recognized except by you. I have read books from the other side of the aisle only to puke. BTW, when the Council Fathers met, the first conciliar phase was the reading of all pertinent texts from both sides for scrutiny and debate. The Protestants learned the art from Catholics (and Orthodox). The Protestants do it assuming the Bible is the authority and not the Church � sola scriptura. Catholics and Orthodox can still reference the Bible and the Church Fathers.


�Totally Western, on both sides--legalistic, rationalistic, reductionist. Ultimately, fruitless, as the pitiful dialogue between Rome and the Protestant denominations shows.�

Elias: And the Pope�s encyclicals are not footnoted with bible references?


�Rome has, in its 500 year battle with the heirs of Luther, adopted exactly the same methodologies and criteria of its opponents, and in the process, has lost its ability even to converse intelligably with the Eastern Churches.�

Elias: Correct. In addition, many Eastern Catholics have lost their ability to converse intelligently with other Catholics and Orthodox and themselves.


�Everybody knows what the historical record is; nobody any longer contests the fact that the papacy today is a much mutated version of what it was in the time of Gregory the Great.�

Elias: Really? Do Roman Catholic really view their papacy as a mutation?


�Nobody considers such matters as papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, original sin, created grace, or any of the host of red herrings which people like to trot out to create artificial differences between the Churches, to be of any critical importance.�

Elias: My point exactly. It grieves me when we don�t tout such matters (either liturgically or in our ECF literature) and folks still think we can be Orthodox in faith and Catholic in dogma.


�WE HAVE MOVED ON. WE ARE NO LONGER CONCERNED WITH REDUCING FAITH TO A SERIES OF SIMPLISTIC FORMULAE. WE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH BEHIND THE STATEMENTS, RECOGNIZING THAT ALL SUCH FORMULATIONS ARE IMPERFECT ATTEMPTS OF HUMAN MIND AND LANGUAGE TO COMPREHEND AND EXPRESS THE INFINITE.�

Elias: Didn�t I state the same thing several times? I have mentioned the systems of thought beneath the theology (Aristotelean/Augustinian or not), the differences in understanding of marriage (contract or covenant), the understanding of the eucharist (transubstantiation, mutation, transfiguration, etc), on salvation (judicial or theosis) and so on. I never stated that one way, even the Eastern way, is the only valid formulation. I have only tried to call some ghetto-minded Catholics to task on such issues. It has failed because (1) only you recognize the problem for what it is and (2) you have concluded that I am just as bad as my contenders.


�The only matter of consequence that separates the two Churches is the matter of jurisdiction. Is the Pope a bishop over all bishops? Or is he the first bishop? Increasingly, theologians and hierarchs alike believe the latter.�

Elias: Ditto. Do I hear an echo? But simply stating such things don�t cut it. What theologians and what bishops think this? The fact that there are two schools of thought on the matter of jurisdiction goes to show that it is over. It is not. The fact that canon law (both Latin and Eastern) stands by the �bishop over all bishops� model is also interesting. The case is still open. You forget that Byzantine Christians have always been passionate about their faith. Remember, we still live with the reality of Canon Law, a law published for us because we are so disorganized according to Rome. And may I ask, what are the assumptions behind those laws?


�The problem then, is not with the theologians, or even with the ordinary bishops, but with two well-entrenched and somewhat incongruous groups: the Curia Romana on the one hand; and the ordinary faithful (Catholic and Orthodox) oon the other.�

Elias: �Rome� vs. the �ordinary faithful.� That is a very Protestant way of looking at things. It is not us against them, Stuart. We are them by our communion. We are part of the system of Rome. We even have a Congregation in our honor. Our bishops are part of the Curia Romana by their assent to their dictates. We pray for the Pope in our liturgy. We are still ONE church, not a church of two groups. How Protestant! How simplistic and reductionist!


�The problem of the faithful is more problematic. These are ordinary, pious people who take their faith seriously, but have never been particularly well catechized.�

Elias: Hence, my challenge to substantiate the claim we adhere to Roman dogmas when they aren�t in the liturgy! I was playing the part of the midwife trying to pull information out of some folks. No birth resulted. Bumper-sticker catechesis should remain on the bumper and not in the classroom.


�Recognize that catechesis in the preconcilliar Catholic Church was, by its own admission, based on rote memorization of some hard-and-fast rules (mainly designed to keep one out of hell).�

Elias: Brings back memories of the Baltimore Catechism.


�On the opposite side, catechesis of the Orthodox faithful too often is a catch-as-catch-can approach, with most of it taking the form of mystagogy through liturgical services that many do not attend on a regular basis (how much is missed when we skip Orthros and Vespers, and Saturday Liturgy!).

Elias: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! And when Byzantine Catholics dump such liturgies (opportunities to learn their faith while praying) we become dumb Catholics. Our mantra is that �We believe in the Pope.� That is all. Please read my thread on LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI and see if I was not trying to say the same thing (but in a different approach)? Pretty please?


�So, here is the bottom line: nobody is going to resolve the matter of the papacy here. Nobody is going to heal the schism by their very own selves. Those who truly desire the unity of Christians need to start LISTENING to each other, not for openings to a counterpunch, but to really try to understand.�

Elias: So let�s ask to close this message board down. End all discussions because Stuart has had enough of reading (not listening). I grew up being taught one thing and learning another. No one, I believe, thinks they can solve the papacy problem here. What is being attempted is getting other people�s thinking out on the table for discussion (or argument). How can one �understand� another when there is no discussion to �listen� to? Yikes! Censorship kills all free discussions.

Elias, the Ninny



[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 08-18-2000).]

>>>Elias: Aaaahh, yes. Prooftexting. Why is it when a Roman Catholic preaches the so-called Petrine Texts it is
called �defending the truth,� but when someone plays by their own Protestant game it is called �prooftexting?�<<<

Prootexting is prooftexting, no matter who does it--Protestant, Roman, or Byzantine. Frankly, picking and choosing citations out of context is not the Byzantine way of doing theology, and if we are to be true to ourselves, we should follow our own Tradition in all things--including theological methods. So again, stop telling me what little snippets of the Gospels say, tell me what the Church DID. Tell me how this is reflected in our liturgical services, and in our sacraments. Build your aguments from that, and stop fighting the Latins on grounds of their own choosing. For one thing, it plays to their strengths (Jesuit casuistry, anyone?), and ultimately it is pointless, because the Bible, like the US Criminal Code, can be made to sit up and dance interesting jigs by talented exegetes.

>>>Elias: And the Pope�s encyclicals are not footnoted with bible references?<<<

The pope doesn't pull his quotes out of context, but rather builds an argument step by step. He is a trained scholarly philosopher and theologian, but his intellectual grounding is utterly Western, and not a good model for aspiring Byzantine theologians.

>>>t has failed
because (1) only you recognize the problem for what it is and (2) you have concluded that I am just as bad as
my contenders.<<<

I do not disagree with your conclusions, only your confrontational tactics, which bring dissension where there could be harmony.

>>>What theologians and what bishops
think this? The fact that there are two schools of thought on the matter of jurisdiction goes to show that it is
over. It is not. The fact that canon law (both Latin and Eastern) stands by the �bishop over all bishops� model
is also interesting. The case is still open.<<<

Just so. But there are ways and there are ways of making the point. The best way is to live your Tradition. Forget what Latins say. Forget what other Byzantines say. Learn your own Tradition, and live it, no matter where it may lead you. Be a light unto the nations, a living, breathing icon of Christ. Let others think what they will.

>>>�Rome� vs. the �ordinary faithful.� That is a very Protestant way of looking at things.<<<

Not Protestant, just objective. Reveiw the history of the Latin Church just in the last 30 years, and consider whether the feelings and pastoral needs of the ordinary faithful were taken into consideration when the Latin Church decided to implement the concilliar reforms, particularly of its liturgy. The fact is, as any bishop will tell you, the Curia is a solipsistic, insular, defensive, power-seeking bureaucracy that does things mainly for its own prestige and convenience.

As to the general clericalism of the Catholic Church in general, the failure of the Church to develop an effective theology of the laity was one of the major failures of the post-concilliar era. Interestingly, this is an area in which Byzantine Catholics could have offered a shining example, except that we have fallen prey to the disease as much if not more than the Latins.

>>>Hence, my challenge to substantiate the claim we adhere to Roman dogmas when they aren�t in the
liturgy! I was playing the part of the midwife trying to pull information out of some folks. No birth resulted.
Bumper-sticker catechesis should remain on the bumper and not in the classroom.<<<

Nah, you're just getting their dander up. Don't go charging around like a bull in a china shop, because challenging peoples' symbolic matrix is a sure way to get nailed to a tree. Our founder has some experience in that area. Since 99% of those dogmas have no impact on our spiritual lives, I fail to see why getting in a shouting match with somebody is going to improve matters. Go beyond the doctrinal formulae. What does the doctrine actually mean? To what truth is it bearing witness? Find the convergences, not the divergences. This is precisely what the theologians have managed to do over the last 30 years. That is why, except on the looney fringe, and among the laity, nobody argues about immaculate conception and purgatory and whatnot. We all know that our particular Traditions express themselves in particular ways, but point to the same overriding truth.

>>>Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! And when Byzantine Catholics dump such liturgies
(opportunities to learn their faith while praying) we become dumb Catholics. Our mantra is that �We believe in
the Pope.� That is all. Please read my thread on LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI and see if I was not trying to say
the same thing (but in a different approach)? Pretty please?<<<

I have read them all. Again, it isn't your position with which I argue, but with your truculence. You alienate those you wish to convert. You draw the line in the sand, and dare them to step over it. And they do, and you respond, and soon it is a futile tit-for-tat again. Recognizing that you have gone as far with one person, or one thread, as you can reasonably expect, why not drop it? Say, "I am not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me, but we are still brothers in Christ and partakers from the one cup".

>>>So let�s ask to close this message board down. End all discussions because Stuart has had enough of
reading (not listening). I grew up being taught one thing and learning another. No one, I believe, thinks they
can solve the papacy problem here. What is being attempted is getting other people�s thinking out on the
table for discussion (or argument). How can one �understand� another when there is no discussion to �listen�
to? Yikes! Censorship kills all free discussions.<<<

My post, Elias, was not directed to you alone, but to Vincent and to all others who follow the same approach. In the first place, it is my sincere belief that nobody here, including me, knows enough about what we don't know. And it is the unknown unknowns that always get one into trouble. A more open, charitable, questioning line might make a pleasant change. Nobody is asking you to bend in your beliefs, only to recognize that others hold their beliefs just as sincerely as you do. If there is an apparent conflict, let us work to resolve it. If we cannot resolve it, let us agree to overlook it unless it be a matter of fundamental dogma affecting our understanding of God, of His Christ, and of the divine economy of salvation. Beyond that, we should be able to tolerate a reasonable diversity--up to and including positions of relative intolerance.

It also helps if you don't take everything so personally.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Stuart

>>>What I find interesting is this seems to indicate that there are only two poles in the Catholic Church --
Byzantine and Latin. Now, in general, Latin Catholics think they are the only Catholics there are. It
appears that Byzantines know they're Catholic, but can't ignore the 2,000 pound gorillia called "Latin."
Yet, does this mean we forget the Syrian Churches? What about the Armenian Churches? The Copts?
The Ge'ez Church?<<<

You have misread me, Father Deacon. I was taking the Byzantine and Latin supremacists both to task for believing that theirs are the only Traditions in the Church, and that there are Traditions which are neither Byzantine nor Latin. See for example:

"There are Traditions outside of your own, some of
which are considerably OLDER. When we learn about all of the Traditions that make Christianity
a house of many mansions, and learn to respect those Traditions not only for how they agree
with us, but also for how they differ, then we will be on the road to real communion in the Holy
Spirit.<<<

I think you can see I was referring to non-Byzantine and non-Latin Traditions, the Coptic, the Syrian, the Armenian, etc.

StuartK,

I understood what you were doing. I apologize if you thought I was criticizing you. I did miss the section where you discussed older traditions...

I do find it interesting that most apologetics tends to take polarizing positions as if what is being discussed is diametrically opposed to what is being refuted.

You have, I believe, correctly stated one of the major problems with this sort of discussion -- it immediately leads to polarization, even if it isn't necessary. In this case, if either side were totally correct then the issue could be resolved. The problem is that this sort of approach misses the mark.

Perhaps another way of saying this looks at the reality: both groups are using 2,000 year-old positions to discuss a situation that has no basis in the material being cited!

Perhaps, instead of attempting to beat each other into submission, it would be better to discuss how, in the situation in which we find ourselves today, the issue of the role of the papacy might be played out.

Clearly the role of the pope as Patriarch of the West does not enter the discussion as that is an intra-Church issue. Rather, the role of the pope as primus inter pares, first among equals, needs to be addressed.

Edward, deacon and sinner

I'm posting this before I've read all the newest comments.

I wrote >> �� none of these passage deny that one of the Apostles had a primacy of authority. That would have to be addressed by comparing these with other passages. It's both-and, not either-or.� <<

Elias: >> The Apostles were a different class from the bishops. <<

This is a non sequitur. Of course they were. I don't understand your point.

>> In fact, until the transfer of the main capital to Constantinople (New Rome/Old Byzantium), Peter was never listed as the first bishop of Rome. Peter AND Paul founded Rome. In response to the capital transfer the West began accentuating Peter in absence of Paul. <<

Rome was spoken of as the cathedra Petri both at and outside of Rome prior to the capital shift to Constantinople. That alone suggests that this analysis is a bit too pat.

>> The West also began relying on the principle of �apostolicity� and not political �accomodation� (to use Dvornik�s terms) because of the loss of prestige in their city. <<

Dvornik points out that the prestige of Old Rome was based on three factors; its imperial status, its dual apostolic foundation, and its reception of special promises through the succession of St. Peter. But the East did not reject any of these, and, as I have shown, accepted the third (which is the most important for our discussion). Speaking of Dvornik, I was rereading a bit of him last night and he acknowledges that the citations I made from, say, Sergius of Cyprus or St. Maximus the Confessor do in fact demonstrate the acknowledgement of a primacy of authority by these Eastern writers. He appears to blunt this a bit by noting that these views do not represent the views of the "official" Byzantine Church. Of course a pesky Roman Catholic apologist might point out that the "official" Byzantine Church was, at the time these were being written, busy kow-towing to the Emperor who was busy torturing Pope St. Martin and St. Maximus the Confessor to death for opposing monothelitism. But that would just be "stirring the pot", so I won't say it ;-D.

>> Peter eventually became the first �Bishop� of Rome. <<

He didn't "become" the first bishop of Rome some centuries after the founding of the Church; the Fathers of East and West agree that he was first Bishop of Rome. There's no need for the quotation marks, if we follow the Fathers. Which of the Fathers would deny that Peter was first bishop of Rome? And why are you denying it, based on some modern historical reconstruction of the early Church?

>> The Apostles were the New Jerusalem, a society not demarcated by geographic limits. Peter (and Paul) was for the Church of Rome as much as for the Church of Ephesus or the Church of Edessa. The Episcopacy was a �pastoral� ministry having a domicile. Can we really transfer an Evangelical and Apostolic ministry such as Peter�s to an episcopal ministry? <<

Apparently so, since the Fathers saw a special Petrine ministry living on in the bishop of Rome. If you deny this then please interact with the evidence that I have already cited (in the other thread). And be prepared to interact with more, because there's lots of it. Stop sweeping this fact under the rug and pretending that it doesn't exist.

>> Would you say that the current jurisdictional model that Rome has with the Eastern Catholics is authentic or ideal? Should the Eastern Orthodox be in "submission" to some Congregation? <<

I would say it's far from ideal. As Fr. Aidan Nichols says, if there ever is reunion between the East and West one of the first things that has to be done is a huge reform of the Roman Curia and the way the Vatican "apparatus" operates (see his article "A Catholic View of Orthodoxy" at http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html).

>> I get worried when I hear Westerners continually mention "submission," "primacy," "supremecy," etc. At times, I feel as though I am talking to a member of some supremicist group. The only difference is that Roman Catholics don't wear arm-bands. <<

I personally do not use the term "supremacy" since it carries such pejorative and negative connotations. But primacy is precisely the issue. I always speak of a "primacy of authority" (which has a practical dimension) vs. a "primacy of honor" (which ends up being pretty much ceremonial and therefore, empty; but do modern Eastern Orthodox understood even primacy of honor correctly? See Brian Daley, "Position and Patronage in the Early Church: The Original Meaning of 'Primacy of Honour'," Theological Studies, 1993, vol. 44 (2), 529-53; Fr. Daley argues that "honor" in the ancient world had an intrinisic juridical dimension to it.). As Brendan notes, the question is just what "authority" means in the Church. Certainly it does not mean coercive power, but it must mean more than just "I'll defer to you as long as you agree with me."

That being said, there is an overemphasis on papal "power" in many Roman Catholic circles, no doubt. I think they overestimate the power of the Pope and rely too much on such "temporal" power as the cure of the Church's ills. But it won't work. I mean, just look at our present situation. I am convinced that one big reason the present Holy Father does not "crack skulls" (besides the fact that it is contrary to his personality) is that he and the whole Vatican gang know the whole thing would explode into a million schisms if he did. Power can only get you so far. (Of course, some of us would prefer outright schism(s) to the present state of things, but that's another matter.)

What's missing in this discussion is the element of paternity. The "steward" of Isa 22:15ff. is a minister of the king, but he is also a "father to the house of Judah." He is not just an administrator, but a parent. As a father, I have more than a primacy of honor in my house; I have a primacy of authority. And my children are not just expected to defer to my opinion, they are expected to obey me. The flip side of that is that I am to lay down my life for my children, to love them, and to form and discipline them in such a way as never to provoke them to discouragement.

The Pope of Rome, as successor of Peter, is not a potentate or a king. He is a father of God's people on earth, the "ecumenical father" if you will. As such he holds a primacy of authority, an authority that deserves to be submitted to and obeyed. But he is obligated before God to wield that authority in a way befitting a loving father and not a sultan or khan. Some of the Popes have arrogated to themselves a "supremacy" of coercive authority and have become sultans and khans. Perhaps they meet the fate of Matt 24:45ff. (see below).

I wrote: >> �In the passages about "the greatest" what the Lord never does say is that there won't be one who is greatest or the leader.� <<

>> Elias: Your argument is a fallacy. It is wishful thinking and doesn�t prove anything. <<

It is no fallacy. It is a fact. The Lord's answer makes no sense if nobody was to be greater or leader. Otherwise He would be saying, "The one who is the greatest will be the least (but there really won't be a greatest, so it's a moot point). The one who will be the leader must be the servant (but there really won't be a leader, so just forget the whole thing.)"

>> Eastern Christians have always been concerned about the nature of Christ, thus the Ecumenical Councils. The Western Church has always been concerned about the nature and/or role of the Pope of Rome. <<

And I'll ask you again, if the West has only been concerned with the papacy, to the virtual exclusion of the episcopacy (as some allege), then why has the Catholic Church continued to hold ecumenical councils? I have asked this now four times; anybody care to answer?

>> Did you know that during the debates at Vatican I some RC bishops tried to claim that the Pope was an incarnation of Christ? <<

I wonder if they weren't speaking of his position as 1) an alter Christus (which all priests are, of course) and more specifically as 2) vicar of Christ. This sounds to me like anti-Catholic propaganda; the fundies have a penchant for wrenching these sorts of things out of context to make them sound as horrible as possible. On the other hand, if some individuals did argue that, they were wrong; that's not the teaching of the Church.

>> Many hymns in the West, which were addressed to the Holy Spirit, were changed to be addressed to the Pope. It gets sick after a while. <<

I don't know of these; do you have examples? But I would agree that it would be sick, if true. Still, that's not what the Church teaches. I think the Eastern tendency to turn the Emperor into a quasi-priest and giving him all sorts of authority to meddle in doctrinal matters is sick. Shall we get into a pissing match about "sick" stuff? Or should we stick with what the Church teaches and how best to get her to "walk the talk"?

I wrote: >> �Indeed, He specifically says that there will be "the greatest" and "the leader"; but He insists that he who is the greatest and the leader must be the servant of all.� <<

>> Elias: Please provide a reference to this. <<

Luke 22:26 says, "But not so with you; rather let the greatest [ho meizon] among you become as the youngest, and the leader [ho hegoumenos] as one who serves." It's interesting to note that Matt 24:45ff. speaks of a servant of the Master who is "placed over the whole household." It's also interesting to note that this servant gets caught abusing his authority and is cast into outer darkness.

>> Wasn�t Jesus more concerned about one�s faith abilities and not one�s leadership abilities? <<

It's a both-and, not an either-or. In matters of salvation, of course. In matters of Church leadership, no.

>> It seems to me that Paul was the real leader of the Christian movement. <<

You've been reading too much Chadwick and Kamphausen. This is a modern spin, not a patristic understanding.

>> But it is not leadership but faith which becomes the model of primacy. When Peter�s faith failed he either sunk in the water or denied Christ. Why does this primacy of faith and love have to translate into a supremacy of universal jurisdiction? Of course, the Ecumenical Fathers recognized the importance of Rome�s faith. This was its role. Peter�s faith was the foundation of the Church, the New Jerusalem.

>> None of the Ecumenical Councils were ever convened by a Pope with all of his �jurisdictional� authority; in fact, the Pope many times had to ask permission from the Emperor. <<

The Fathers of the 6th EC testified in a letter to the emperor that all five prior ecumenical councils had been jointly convoked by the emperor and the Pope of Rome (Mansi 11:657). Perhaps they were wrong, or perhaps they knew more about it that we do.

>> Elias: Luke understood well that Peter was commissioned to be in charge of the mission to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Nothing there to imply Peter�s primacy over Paul. <<

You're arguing like a Protestant, not an Eastern Catholic.

>> Elias: Why did the tongues of fire on Pentecost descend upon all 12 Apostles equally? No special charisma was noted with Peter. <<

Elias, the teaching of the Catholic Church is that all bishops are equal with respect to their spiritual dignity (sacerdotium). They are not equal with respect to their authority (auctoritas). The bishop of Rome receives no special gift of grace different than any other bishop when he is ordained. Even when the Pope speaks ex cathedra he does not receive a "positive" gift of grace, equivalent to the inspiration of the Apostles as they wrote sacred Scripture. Infallibility is strictly a "negative" charism; he is prevented from teaching error, lest the whole Church be led astray and the gates of hell prevail. That's all. He's not an oracle, he's not a prophet, and no extra spiritual gift of grace makes him some kind of super-bishop.

>> Elias: As things began to fragment? What kind of reasoning is this? What was the Council of Jerusalem all about? <<

I am speaking of incidences in which there would be schism within the episcopal college, which there was not during the Apostolic era (and, as you have pointed out, the notion of the episcopacy itself is a little fuzzy during the Apostolic era.) Without a primacy, how do you decide which bishops (who are all supposed to be equal, right?) are "in the Church" and which are in schism? Many of the Fathers note that the primacy was established precisely to obviate schism. This gets back to our discussion about the ratification and criteria of ecumenical councils.

You did not address my argument that St. Peter issued the doctrinal decision at Jerusalem, while St. James issued a "canonical" and pastoral application of it. This would correspond quite neatly to the way later councils are broken down�dogma and discipline�wouldn't it? Perhaps a bit anachronistic to see this at Jerusalem, but it fits the biblical text rather nicely.

I wrote >> �Sure they did. But the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive. For example, St. John Chrysostom also says in relation to John 21:15ff.� <<

>> Elias: Let�s consider the case of Chrysostom�s appeal to Rome. Many Westerners use this to prove his �submission� to the Pope. (Some folks love words like submision, primacy, supremacy, and obedience) <<

Why did you skip on to this "appeal" without addressing the citation I gave? I said nothing about the appeal and I agree with you that St. John C's "appeal" does not prove what many Catholic apologists assert. But all I sought to demonstrate was that the "reenstatement" interpretation and "primacy" interpretation of John 21:15ff are not mutually exclusive.

>> And when the Pope was singled out, he naturally responded by convoking a council � in order not to act alone. <<

Yes. And the definition of papal infallibility in Vatican I makes careful note of the Pope of Rome's perennial practice (responsibility, really) to act in concert with his brother bishops, whether through the Roman synod or the universal episcopate. This they have always done (even in the two ex cathedra definitions.)

God bless.

I've always thought that the College of Bishops (including the bishops with 'honors' i.e., archbishops, metropolitan archbishops, cardinals, partriarchs and popes)were the synodal governance of the Church.

So, if the synodal constituency of the Church exists as the prime 'epi-skopi' (='overseers')of the church, then the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the conclave of the bishops should be the guiding force in the 'kahal Adonai', the 'people of God'.

What is disquieting is the fact that some folks talk about 'ea semper', i.e., something that is 'true' at all times. This is a philosophical concept that has been plopped onto theology and accepted as a truism.

The fact is, the Church as a living entity exists because the Holy Spirit has been sent by Christ, as promised, to remain with us until the end of time. If indeed the Holy Spirit is the underpinning of the Church, and the Church is a living entity, then we need to renounce the idea of 'ea semper' in regard to doctrine, theology and catechesis[except as it relates to the 'existence' (Greek: os oon) of God.] {Check out our icons of Christ and see the words around the 'halo'}

So, if certain folks claim that practices, theological principles, 'laws', governance, etc. are 'eternal', they would seem to be flying in the face of the graces that are, of necessity, given to the community by the Holy Spirit.

Christ gave us the promise that He would send the Holy Spirit to us. Why? Because we, as living beings, are constantly challenged to make decisions that either conform or don't conform to the will of God. If stuff (like doctrines, jurisdictions, 'powers', etc.) were truly 'eternal' and 'immutable', then there would be little need for the ongoing Presence of God that we call the Holy Spirit. That approach makes me break out in hives because it appears to deny the need for ongoing graces.

As children of Constantinople, we have inherited our pathway to God from our ancestors. Our prayers, fasting, world-view, and relationships to each other are based upon the wisdom that we have received. But to opine that these modalities are valid at all times and in all places is the height of human hubris. We USE these modalities to make progress (under the guidance of the 'overseer' =the bishop), but we are NOT bound to them. If this were true, we would be a Byzantine historical society whose existence was based upon texts and interpretations. We aren't an historical society; we are a living and hopefully vibrant society of lovers (of God and our fellow human beings). 'Cause that's what Christ told us to be.

There are those who grab scriptural quotes from both Old and New Testaments. Then, through metaphor (I suppose), they apply these quotes to all sorts of situations and expect the faithful to accept the metaphorical analogy without question. E.g., Peter and the keys, Paul and the Jews, etc. This poetic anamnesis is certainly interesting and the 'stuff' of Hallmark cards, but in the day to day life of the Church, it isn't the reality of the situation.

Christianity is not supposed to be law-bound. Christianity is an ADULT faith that requires its adherents to make judgements based upon what is most loving of God and of our neighbors in specific circumstances. Our Gospel is not the 'cookbook' (like Deuteronomy) that says: 'do this, and God will love you', 'do that, and you're dead meat'. ("Oh, the Freedom of the children of God!!" St. Paul)

The BISHOP of the diocese is the supreme overseer of God's people. The bishopS (all of them!!) constitute the overarching guidance for God's people that is known as the Church. We, as God's people, need to work with them to spread the Gospel message. Whomever the bishops decide is 'orthodox' in faith and teaching is their decision. And whom they are in communion with is their decision also.

What we, as good followers of Christ, need to do is to (I hate this word) 'dialogue' with our clergy and bishops to keep them informed of what we encounter, and to both support and challenge them to bring us ever closer to God and to our fellow baptized brothers and sisters. To do less is to abdicate our responsibility as the baptized. When Byzantine Catholics acknowledge the 'orthodoxy' of faith and the love of God and neighbor of our Orthodox brothers and sisters, then we have the right-- nay the OBLIGATION-- to accept them as fellow pilgrims to the Omega point of union with God. To say that they pooped on someone in Damascus in 1423, and therefore they are 'anathema' is just arrogant and more than stupid. They are our fellow baptized Christians. We love them; they are family; they are our OWN. And decent Orthodox peoples also see that we are family and united in the faith of the Anointed One. For the 'legalists' who apply the law rather than love, I suggest that they find their salvation elsewhere. DON'T COME BETWEEN MEMBERS OF A FAMILY.

The omnipresent Holy Spirit will be with us to rectify the stupidities of the past, and we need to pray constantly that we will be guided into the future.

Scriptural and patristic quotes from the long-dead that are used to rend asunder the fabric of the Church are an insult to our Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit. The decisions and statements of our ancestors exist to show us how they responded to situations. But to demand that their propositions and statements are 'ea semper' binding upon God's people appears to me to be nothing less than idolatry.

As a baptized Christian, as one who lives his life among real people with real problems and pains, I want to be able to hug, kiss and hold tight to those who KNOW that Christ is our model and our guide in loving God and loving (truly) our fellow human beings. I personally will not settle for less than this.

Trust our bishops; and trust in the Holy Spirit. And let's get on with it.

Blessings to all!

[This message has been edited by Dr John (edited 08-18-2000).]

Dr. John,

I hate to say it, but there's a enclave of nuns in my diocese who are really into New Age and paganism and stuff and they talk just like you. I have to tell you, brother, that you sound more like a Gnostic than a Christian. I'm not questioning your commitment to Christ, but you're just not talking like a Christian, let alone a Catholic.

[This message has been edited by Vincent (edited 08-19-2000).]

Hey can you guys teach me how to get those little squares in your messages. I think they are cool !!

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner