Orthodox Church is defective???

copticuser20

I was reading this article (not a recent article) and it said that Pope Benedict stated that the orthodox church and other denominations are defective. can somone please explain this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/ns/world_news-europe/

peterfarrington

Well the Orthodox Churches are not in communion with Rome, and do not accept all of the teachings of Roman Catholicism, therefore they are considered defective by Rome.

But equally all Christian communities must consider other communities are defective in some way or they would have no identity at all. This is a feature of all organisations and communities. For example, Orthodox consider the Roman Catholic communion defective to a varying extent. And the Protestants consider the Orthodox and Roman Catholics to be defective etc etc.

It is possible to consider another community to be defective and not mean this in an abusive manner. It is, to some extent, just a matter of fact.

Father Peter

anba bola

This is a quote from the article copticuser20 posted, about the statement of the document:

The document said Orthodox churches were indeed “churches” because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed “many elements of sanctification and of truth.” But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a “wound” that harmed them, it said.

(Papal primacy relies on the primacy of St. Peter which I'm confused about)

As I understand it (Please correct me if I'm wrong), in the early church St. Peter was thought of as first among equals(this is from my readings of St. John Chrysostom and other Orthodox sources, but I may be misinterpreting them). I've been confused on this subject for a while, so if anyone could care to explain whether we believe St. Peter was first among equals or not.

I know in St. John Chrysostom's Homily on St. Ignatius and St. Babylas(http://books.google.com/books?id=62riWtq3UuIC&lpg=PA220&dq=st.%20ignatius%20and%20babylas&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q=peter&f=false), he says

At all events the master of the whole world,
Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He
commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period.

It is important to note that St. John Chrysostom is talking about the city of Antioch, and speaks of St. Ignatius as a succesor to St. Peter (St. Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch).

Also I think he is considered first among equals by our Eastern Orthodox Brethern, because in one hymn (this is an official hymn, and the source is here) about him it is written:

"Today Christ the Rock glorifies with highest honor
The rock of Faith and leader of the Apostles,
Together with Paul and the company of the twelve,
Whose memory we celebrate with eagerness of faith,
Giving glory to the one who gave glory to them! "

George_Mina_Awad

Ah, I see it's time for the weekly debate-vs.-Catholicism thread.

I honestly have no problem with them viewing St. Peter as their first pope. Christ said he would be the rock upon which His church would be founded, and the Roman Catholic church is the largest in the world. In my eyes, there's no arguing against that.

Zoxsasi

[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10129.msg123665#msg123665 date=1291672678]
Well the Orthodox Churches are not in communion with Rome, and do not accept all of the teachings of Roman Catholicism, therefore they are considered defective by Rome.

But equally all Christian communities must consider other communities are defective in some way or they would have no identity at all. This is a feature of all organisations and communities. For example, Orthodox consider the Roman Catholic communion defective to a varying extent. And the Protestants consider the Orthodox and Roman Catholics to be defective etc etc.

It is possible to consider another community to be defective and not mean this in an abusive manner. It is, to some extent, just a matter of fact.

Father Peter


I agree with this statement. I'm sure it is not meant to be derogatory. The Catholics no doubt see us as defective because we are not in union with them. But still, Fr. Peter, this should not have been said. Its not the language one should use when trying to unite the Churches together.

If we are defective with respect to the Roman Catholic Church, then what about protestants that don't even believe in Priesthood, nor Holy Communion? What term shall we use for them? Really REALLY defective??

This cannot go on.

He needs to win the mindset of the Orthodox faithful and their respect before unity happens. Such language and terms cause distance rather than closeness between us. This is a shame as we are probably the only Church that respects the Catholic Church more than any other denomination. We respect their sacraments, we respect their priesthood and their Churches.

The same cannot be said for many other denominations.

joeg

[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=10129.msg123762#msg123762 date=1291692518]
I honestly have no problem with them viewing St. Peter as their first pope. Christ said he would be the rock upon which His church would be founded, and the Roman Catholic church is the largest in the world. In my eyes, there's no arguing against that.


Regarding this:

While I in no way agree with the final statements that are drawn in the article below, or the point of view (it seems to be a Protestant view attacking the Catholic church), this article does make use of an argument I have heard before regarding the "Peter is the rock on which the Church is built."

I will quote the whole article for the sake of context, but will bold the relevant part:

Is The Church Built on “Petros” or “Petra”?

The churches of Christ Greet You (Romans 16:16)

The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter was the first pope, the successor of Christ. They say he is there­fore Christ's vicar and the visible and infallible head of the church, having power and authority over all the other apostles and the entire church. Catholic leaders also claim that Christ built His church upon Peter and gave him the keys to unlock and close the kingdom of heaven and hell to anyone as he chose. They assert that the popes in past history up to the present are Peter's succes­sors, and have the same power of the keys.

These far‑reaching claims are based on the verses found in Matthew 16:18-19. Let us make a careful and critical examina­tion of these verses and see what Jesus said and what He actually meant. Here is the text: "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The New Testament was originally written in the Greek, from which the Latin, English, and other versions were translated. If you study the Greek text you will find that the word Peter and the word Rock on which Christ was to build His church are two separate and distinct words, each having a different meaning. The word Peter in Greek is petros, which means "a piece of rock; a stone; a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or roll­ing." The word rock is petra, which means "a rock; a cliff; a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; solid formation; fixed; immovable; enduring."

The word petros for Peter in the Greek is in the masculine gender and the word petra for the rock is in the feminine gender. Petros and petra are two distinct words in the Greek. Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while petra is a solid, immov­able rock. In the English language the gender is not specified by the article. We say the fork, the spoon, and the knife. The three words have the same article. In the Greek, as in many of the modern languages, each noun and corresponding article is in the masculine, feminine, or neuter gender. In many cases it is an arbitrary arrangement, regardless of sex.

The article in Greek is important. If one noun is in the masculine it must have a mas­culine article, and if it is in the feminine it must have a feminine article. The text under consideration in the Greek shows that petros is in the masculine, and petra in the feminine, proving that they are two distinct words; and each one has a different meaning. Now the question is, on which of the two, petros or petra, did Christ establish His church? Was it on petros, a movable stone, or petra, an immovable rock?

Let us quote the text again: "I say also unto thee [to Peter], That thou art Peter [petros, masculine gender], and upon this Rock [petra, feminine gender] I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The text indi­cates clearly that the church of Christ is built on petra and not on Petros.

Now, who is this petra or rock on which Christ built His true church? Let the Holy Bible again give the answer. If the Bible gives the answer, we make no mistake in accepting it because the definition is authentic. "They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock [petra, in the Greek] was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4). Here we have evidence that petra refers to Christ, and not to Peter, petros. Again we quote: "Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20) "He is the Rock, His work is perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4; 2 Samuel 22:2-3) (Douay, 2 Kings 22:2-3).

If Peter is the rock on which Christ was to build His church, Peter could not be overcome and the gates of hell could not pre­vail against him. But the fact is that he was overcome, and the gates of hell did prevail against him. Didn't he deny his Lord? This was after Christ told him that the Rock was not to be overcome. Jesus told Peter on one occasion: "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matthew 16:23). Peter himself gives the answer as to who the Rock is. He says Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Again, speaking of Christ, he says: "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders" (Acts 4:10-11); so Christ, the Son of God, must be the rock on which God built His church.

If Jesus would have built His church on Peter, petros, He would have said: "Thou art Petros, and upon this Petros [or upon it] I will build My church," but such is not the case. He plainly says: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build My church.” Paul tells us that the petra is Christ. He also says, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Peter is never designated by petra. Thus, Peter and Paul agree that Christ is the Rock; but the pope claims the title for himself. Which testimony should we accept? "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).

Long before Jesus was born He was considered the Rock. Isaiah declares: "Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cor­nerstone, a sure foundation" (Isaiah 28:16). Peter applies this prophecy to Christ. He wrote: "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief Cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded" (1 Peter 2:6). David said: "Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I" (Psalm 61:2) (Douay, Psalm 60:3).


If the church was built on Peter then Peter would be the head of the church. However, Peter was not the head of the church in his day. Instead of having the disciples, apostles, and other believers call Peter pope, or Father Peter, or Holy Father Peter, Jesus said: "Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.... But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant" (Matthew 23:8‑11). "Call no man your father," could not refer to an earthly parent, but to the spiritual fathers. Jesus recommended our paying full respect to earthly parents when He quoted the commandment: "Honor thy father and thy mother" (Mark 7:10). 

Sometimes 1 Corinthians 4:15 is used to prove that we may call spiritual leaders our fathers. Paul writes: "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." They were begotten through the Gospel and not through Paul. Again Paul writes: "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth" (Romans 1:16). We repeat: it is through the Gospel that we are begotten, and not through Paul or some other person. It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation, and not man.

If Jesus delegated Peter as the head of the church, why did the other disciples quarrel among themselves as to who would be the greatest (Luke 9:46)? If this decision had already been made by Christ, why should the others fret about it? The other disciples would have submitted to the wish of their Master. Thus it seems evi­dent that no such appointment had been made by Jesus. Neither Peter nor any of his successors were heads of the true church. Paul explains this when he says: “The head of every man is Christ” (1 Cor. 11:3). God "gave Him to be the head over all things to the church" (Ephesians 1:22). This explains that Jesus is the head of every person and also of the church. We are responsible to the head, which is Christ, and not to men who try to circumvent the work of Christ and take His place. Christ is the head of every person, and we are responsible to Him as individuals.

There is not a trace of evidence in the Bible that Peter was a pope. What would you think of historians who would write accounts of Abraham Lincoln, yet in not a single instance mention his title as President of the United States of America? Could you imagine such an oversight? If Peter had borne some such title as "pope," don't you think that at least one inspired writer would have mentioned it? Peter wrote two epistles, but he does not use the title of pope in either. Can you imagine a pope today writing two letters to the church and forgetting his title? Peter could have mentioned it on the Day of Pentecost when he delivered that stirring sermon (Acts 2), but he did not do so. The church in the days of the apostles did not recognize Peter as pope or the head of the church. Neither does the true church today.

Source: http://www.trustingodamerica.com/Petra.htm

George_Mina_Awad

Ah, now that's interesting.

joeg

[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=10129.msg123853#msg123853 date=1291760102]
Ah, now that's interesting.


It is indeed.

I will look into it some more after my exam on Thursday, but I've certainly seen this argument somewhere before.

anba bola

On Matthew 16:19 this is what St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom said:

He did not tell him ‘you are a rock’ ‘tu es Petra’, but he rather said ‘tu es Petrus’ for the
rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:4). This is it which Simon confessed, just as the entire church would
have confessed. This is why he is called ‘Peter’.
St. Augustine.

By saying so he meant, ‘on this faith, and on this confession I build my church. He
showed by this that many others believe in what St. Peter believed in. Moreover, the Lord has
raised up his spirit and has made him a shepherd.’
St. John Chrysostom.


We see that even St. Augustine who is held in very high esteem by the RCC doesn't agree with the outright primacy of Peter (And I think through this quote by St. John Chrysostom I think that he didn't believe in the Primacy of St. Peter, but rather of him as first among equals? Correct? Do we share the same stance?)

ilovesaintmark

Anba Bola,

That is a categorical:  NO.

anba bola

ilovesaintmark,

Could you expand on that. Do you have any Patristics or anything from todays Bishops on it? Also why would it not be right to say this (i.e. what dangers does it have).

Sorry for all the questions, but thanks in advance for any responses.


Please pray for me and that I may come closer to God.

ilovesaintmark

Anba Bola,

I think even in your own post you highlight this apparent aspect of non-primacy.  I believe Fr. Peter has covered this topic considerably in his posts with a great detail.

Historically, there were major imperial cities and there was a certain prominence to being from that given city.  The See of Rome is an extension of prestige and prominence relative to a given corner of the empire, but not to any bestowed ecclesiastical authority or prominence.  Again, if there was this expressed "first among equals", which is a stepping stone towards "primacy", then why was there a need for ecumenical councils when the See of Rome could have easily adjudicated the whole process?  Why is the See of Antioch not a place of "first among equals"?  St. Peter was more of a bishop in chronicity and length at Antioch than in Rome?

I am not as skilled in terms of cutting and pasting citations to reference in regard to my comment.  I would tell you that my brief statement is a minimal synopsis of Fr. Peter's well written and expanded explanations.  I would suggest a parousal of his posts on this topic.

I would also add that his book:  Orthodox Christology places a lot of these issues into perspective from different approaches and angles.

ilovesaintmark

And in response to the last portion of your post:

You are close to God, since He is close and near to you.  All you have to do is reach out and kiss His Face.

anba bola

Thank you ilovesaintmark for your kind and loving posts,

I think what I meant was first in honor and not in what they decide (for lack of a better wording), i.e. their decision is equal to everyone else's, but they're just higher in honor. I think though that it makes sense to say this was because of what city the Patriarch resided over and not because of St. Peter.

I accidently stumbled upon the third canon of the council of Constantinople and here is what I found

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

This seems to further affirm the idea that honor was relative to city though all the Patriarchs were equal (honor by the way I said it and what is used here I think means the same as prominence)

I think I'm sort of grasping this, so St. Peter has nothing to do with the honor or prominence of a Bishop but rather their city.

So just one more question, seperate from the issue of Patriarchs or succesion or any of that, would we consider St. Peter first in prominence among the Apostles (remember this means equal to all other Apostles) because from what I've read of St. John Chrysostom and Eastern Orthodox sources this seems to be alluded to.


On a seperate note, though I greatly wish to purchase Orthodox Christology, I'm unable to because I can't pay online. If it was in my church bookstore though, I'd buy it in an instant.

Please pray for me

ilovesaintmark

Anba Bola,

St. Peter has  a certain prominence but not preeminence.  Let us not forget:  he was the first to be chosen, he is the eldest of the Apostles, he was the only one that was married, he made a declaration of the Son of God (as a lesson to the others and the world), he is a central figure of falling and then presenting penance, but this does not carry over to any successor either in Rome or Antioch. 

On a simple basis, each person needs to carry through on their own life struggle.  My mother may be a living saint, but that does not make me an instant saint also.  I must carry on a struggle and a fight to live a Godly life.  There is no inheritance factor.

In regard to the Canons of  an Ecumenical Council, and without getting into a lot mashing, they are variable for example:  in the Coptic Tradition there are 25 Canons to Nicea, in the Western tradition about 18 depending on the source.  One of the Canons of Nicea, relative to the Coptic Tradition, is the elevation of the Constantinople as a full Patriarchate.  Which means what, it wasn't one prior to that point.  Constantinople, as an established Eastern Imperial city, was relative to the wishes and aspirations of the Emperor Constantine, having started the transfer of power and seat to Byzantium (which took on the name Constantinople).

You also have to understand the politics at hand, for prestige and impression.

So if there was a preeminence, then why were the first three Councils not presided by Rome or Constantinople?

In regard to prominence, St. Peter's voice was heard at the Council of Jerusalem.  In regard to preeminence, it seems like St. James was chosen for that role in that same Council.

Prominence is for Rome and Constantinople in a quasi fashion relative to protocol and manipulation of protocol, but regardless, both were not able to muster the same theological erudition as Alexandria, which is what led to so much dissention.  If you recall the story of twelve brothers, jealousy was the main factor that caused an almost demise of one of their own, yet that same persecuted soul was the source of their salvation.

The Canon, taken in milieu, may have been for pragmatism or appeasement to stop the bickering.  Even for that matter it could have been to make the Emperor happy for hosting and paying for everything.  Regardless, Alexandria still took the lead.

I know it is a stretch, but if you want to send me your address by PM, I'll get you a copy of Orthodox Christology.  I feel so strongly about that book because of how concise and direct in its scholarly aspect, that I believe it to be a necessary foundational text book for a deacon.  You can send Fr. Peter a note, and he will vouch for my persona if you have thoughts about sending such info (whatever your comfort zone).  Consider it a Nativity Present and not a Christmas Present [that's a corny joke].  Or another thing, have your church bookstore work on getting some copies in there reach.  It is available on lulu.com

anba bola

Thanks ilovesaintmark for the great explanation,

but I thought that all of the 12 were married with the exception of St. John the Evangelist. This explains the quote found in HH Pope Shenouda's biography saying: "nobody recognized Him except John, because it was only the celibate who knew the Celibate, the Son of the Celibate."

Are you sure about the matter of Contstantinople being added at the council of Nicea? From what I've looked up the first Patriarch of Constantinople was Nectarius who came right before St. John Chrysostom. I also found that he was called Archbishop Nectarius, before the council and after a Patriarch.

I am sure, as you said, that there was nor is any preeminence at all, among the Apostle or Patriarchs (this doesn't mean that some don't claim preeminence). So would it be sort of like it is today with HAH Patriarch Bartholomew as first in honor. Would it be that way with the Apostles and St. Peter where there is no prememinence, but a certain prominence?

Thanks again for the wonderful explanation and sorry for my many and recurring questions, and may God bless you all.

ilovesaintmark, I'll send you a PM explaining my situation.

Please pray for me.

ilovesaintmark

Anba Bola,

There are varying traditions about the marital status of different Apostles.

Definitively, because of Scriptural declaration:  Peter--married; John--celibate.  John, being the youngest, was chosen to take care of the Virgin Mary.  Because he honored her as his mother, he was granted the longest life.

ilovesaintmark

Which is another issue.  Taking care of the Virgin Mary has the highest honor, so would that make St. John preeminent and not just prominent?

The official cathedral of the Bishop of Rome is St. John Lateran.  Why is St. Peter's Basilica not the official cathedral? 

There are a lot of discrepencies in the formulation of Roman and Constantinopolitan preeminence.  They are contrived issues to build posture.