Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
The Primacy of Saint Peter
There seems to be a lot of issues going on about who is the "head" of the Churches, or who should be the "head" of the Church.
As you are aware, the Catholics argue that Saint Peter was given the mandate of being this head. They feel that we are in dis-subordination to their Pope, and we are heretical in our dogmas.
During the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Century AD: who was the head of the Church?
If the See of Saint Peter (Rome) was the head of the Church, why bother having Ecumenical Councils for? (e.g the Council of Nicea, the Council of Constantinople, the council of Ephesus etc..)
What was the point of these councils if the early church already had a head? Surely, if the see of Saint Peter was the head of the early Church, the patriarchs of Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, etc would have just said : "Let the See of Saint Peter decide" - why hold a council for? When Arius, the ridiculous, came up with his heresy, why the need for a council? Why didnt anyone tell him :"OK mate, look, let's wrap it up and put it past Rome and see what they think 1st ?"
Even the very 1st council (the council of Jerusalem) - where the Apostles disagreed on whether they should baptize or circumcise & baptise etc, it says clearly in the Bible that the Apostles were gathered with the elders to discuss this. Why even have a discussion if Saint Peter was their head? That's the whole point of a head - to lead, not to take opinions.
If the See of Saint Peter was the head of the World Wide Church, how could this "head" send his emissary to Constantinople, go into the great the Cathedral of Agios Sophia, during a mass, and excommunicate an ENTIRE patriarchate without any warning, without any discussion? Is this the action/behaviour of the head of a Church? The delagate was chased by a deacon before leaving, and BEGGED not to leave. He shakes the dust off of his sandals and says :"Let God look and Judge".
Is that something a leader should do?
Secondly, if Christ really did mean for Saint Peter (He - the man. Mr Simon Peter) as being THE STONE on which Christ was to build his Church - what happens when HE, SAINT PETER dies? Is the Church then supported by his tomb? Is the Church then dependent on him for salvation?? or is it his faith?? Is it his faith that Christ was talking about that is the rock? for Saint Peter did reply and said: "You are the Christ, the Son of God".
In the orthodox Church, the Pontiff, whoever it has been, follows in the footsteps of faith, dogma, tradition, understanding and spirituality of his predecessor. I guess in our case, that would be Saint Mark. But if the Catholics change their dogmas, and innovate their faith and spiritual traditions, yet have a See to their Patriarch (Saint Peter), then they are only successors to Saint Peter - the Person, not to Saint Peter's dogmas, traditions, spirituality, faith.. etc.. etc.
What is the importance of having a Single Head to govern all the Patriarchs? Why is this so important for the Catholics? Of course, I can appreciate that having a head means we are all united, we are One Church, but if we had different patriarchs and were still united by common dogma, faith, tradition, spirituality and creed, it would still be OK - no?? What would be missing? There would still be hierarchy, there would still be liturgies etc.
I see a benefit for us all sharing the same faith, dogmas, creeds etc. but I cannot see how all the patriarchs being under the authority of ONE patriarch helps in anyway whatsoever. I can see that we could all be ONE in faith, dogma and creed etc, and that would be nice, but why would anyone insist on all partriachates being under the One authority of Rome?
The catholics argue, today, that there is an urgency for unity, more than ever, and that unity depends on us accepting Rome as our authority. I don't understand this. I agree there is an urgency for unity, but how does being under "Rome" help with respect to dogmas? The Roman Catholics came up with a dogma called "LIMBO" - a few years ago, they said "Limbo doesn't exist". Today the Catholics are charismatic and have lost nearly ALL spiritual traditions in their Church: surely, it is a good thing we are NOT all under Rome so we don't look stupid?? (All of us?) Maybe it would be nice for only a few people to look weak or lost rather than the entire body of Christ???? So, I see a greater importance of "NOT PUTTING ALL YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET" philosophy here.
So, my questions are:
a) What was the state of the early Church concerning the Primacy of Saint Peter
b) Is it the faith of saint peter that holds the primacy, or is it the person?
c) What IS the importance of having a Single head of the Church?
As you are aware, the Catholics argue that Saint Peter was given the mandate of being this head. They feel that we are in dis-subordination to their Pope, and we are heretical in our dogmas.
During the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Century AD: who was the head of the Church?
If the See of Saint Peter (Rome) was the head of the Church, why bother having Ecumenical Councils for? (e.g the Council of Nicea, the Council of Constantinople, the council of Ephesus etc..)
What was the point of these councils if the early church already had a head? Surely, if the see of Saint Peter was the head of the early Church, the patriarchs of Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, etc would have just said : "Let the See of Saint Peter decide" - why hold a council for? When Arius, the ridiculous, came up with his heresy, why the need for a council? Why didnt anyone tell him :"OK mate, look, let's wrap it up and put it past Rome and see what they think 1st ?"
Even the very 1st council (the council of Jerusalem) - where the Apostles disagreed on whether they should baptize or circumcise & baptise etc, it says clearly in the Bible that the Apostles were gathered with the elders to discuss this. Why even have a discussion if Saint Peter was their head? That's the whole point of a head - to lead, not to take opinions.
If the See of Saint Peter was the head of the World Wide Church, how could this "head" send his emissary to Constantinople, go into the great the Cathedral of Agios Sophia, during a mass, and excommunicate an ENTIRE patriarchate without any warning, without any discussion? Is this the action/behaviour of the head of a Church? The delagate was chased by a deacon before leaving, and BEGGED not to leave. He shakes the dust off of his sandals and says :"Let God look and Judge".
Is that something a leader should do?
Secondly, if Christ really did mean for Saint Peter (He - the man. Mr Simon Peter) as being THE STONE on which Christ was to build his Church - what happens when HE, SAINT PETER dies? Is the Church then supported by his tomb? Is the Church then dependent on him for salvation?? or is it his faith?? Is it his faith that Christ was talking about that is the rock? for Saint Peter did reply and said: "You are the Christ, the Son of God".
In the orthodox Church, the Pontiff, whoever it has been, follows in the footsteps of faith, dogma, tradition, understanding and spirituality of his predecessor. I guess in our case, that would be Saint Mark. But if the Catholics change their dogmas, and innovate their faith and spiritual traditions, yet have a See to their Patriarch (Saint Peter), then they are only successors to Saint Peter - the Person, not to Saint Peter's dogmas, traditions, spirituality, faith.. etc.. etc.
What is the importance of having a Single Head to govern all the Patriarchs? Why is this so important for the Catholics? Of course, I can appreciate that having a head means we are all united, we are One Church, but if we had different patriarchs and were still united by common dogma, faith, tradition, spirituality and creed, it would still be OK - no?? What would be missing? There would still be hierarchy, there would still be liturgies etc.
I see a benefit for us all sharing the same faith, dogmas, creeds etc. but I cannot see how all the patriarchs being under the authority of ONE patriarch helps in anyway whatsoever. I can see that we could all be ONE in faith, dogma and creed etc, and that would be nice, but why would anyone insist on all partriachates being under the One authority of Rome?
The catholics argue, today, that there is an urgency for unity, more than ever, and that unity depends on us accepting Rome as our authority. I don't understand this. I agree there is an urgency for unity, but how does being under "Rome" help with respect to dogmas? The Roman Catholics came up with a dogma called "LIMBO" - a few years ago, they said "Limbo doesn't exist". Today the Catholics are charismatic and have lost nearly ALL spiritual traditions in their Church: surely, it is a good thing we are NOT all under Rome so we don't look stupid?? (All of us?) Maybe it would be nice for only a few people to look weak or lost rather than the entire body of Christ???? So, I see a greater importance of "NOT PUTTING ALL YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET" philosophy here.
So, my questions are:
a) What was the state of the early Church concerning the Primacy of Saint Peter
b) Is it the faith of saint peter that holds the primacy, or is it the person?
c) What IS the importance of having a Single head of the Church?
Comments
The Church has never accepted that the bishop of Rome is head of the Church. Never. The most that has been allowed is that he was sometimes considered a senior brother in the episcopate. From the time of Leo of Rome the bishops of Rome often tried to insist on their complete authority over the Church - it was never accepted and was and is a heresy that destroys the Church.
Even in the West the absolute authority of the bishop of Rome was resisted. It is easy to find flowery words in diplomatic letters which speak highly of the bishop of Rome but it is practice that matters, and practically no Eastern bishop wanted the bishop of Rome intruding into his affairs. Practically speaking, no Western bishop did either.
When St Dioscorus became Pope of Alexandria he received a letter from Leo of Rome which had a list of demands in it, to do with liturgical practices, insisting that Alexandria must do everything the same way as Rome. These demands were properly ignored since the bishop of Rome had and still has no authority to demand anything of any other Church, other than faithfulness to the truth of course.
I have a very great regard for Catholics and many aspects of Catholicism. But WE ARE NOT CATHOLICS and we must not allow ourselves to become attracted even unwittingly by those erroneous doctrines which have defined Catholicism as separate from Orthodoxy. As far as I can see the worst of all these erroneous doctrines is the one which infected Rome most early, the false teaching that the bishop of Rome was the head of the Church and had authority over the whole of the Church. This teaching destroys the very fabric of the Church since no bishop is actually a bishop, every one is an assistant to the bishop of Rome.
I hope that while retaining a deep respect for much of Catholicism and the Catholic people we will be able to entirely erase that influence of Catholic (and Protestant) thinking and practice which has manifestly affected our Orthodox Church in recent times. It does not belong to our faith and it diminishes our Faith.
We do not believe in the primacy of the bishop of Rome - there is no Orthodox bishop of Rome in any case to be primate.
We do not believe that the bishop of Rome is infallible
We do not believe that the bishop of Rome, or indeed any bishop, even our beloved Pope Shenouda, is above the authority of a council of the Church
We do not believe in Original Sin
We do not believe in the Immaculate Conception
We do not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son
We do not believe in an obligatory clerical celibacy
We do not believe that baptism is properly performed by affusion
We do not believe that the eucharist is properly received in one kind and using a wafer
I fervently wish that we did not allow Western art to have such an influence
I fervently wish that the writings of Augustine were not considered more important than those of our recognised Fathers.
We are not Catholic. We do believe that the Catholic Church - which we love - has fallen into error. We must preserve ourselves from these same errors.
Father Peter
I hope you feel better. Even with the flu, your posts are wonderful. Have you tried saline nasal spray? I find it works well to eradicate the virus.
Your post puts things nice and clear. There are no ambiguities.
I would just like to state, that your typing was a little fast on the keyboard. I believe that you meant: we are not Roman Catholic or Latin Rite. We are Catholic (as in the Universal Church and in keepers of the Apostolic Faith).
I apologize for the intrusion. I just thought that since the translation of Universal and Catholic go back and forth in the English editions and rites in the United States, there may be some confusion.
Get rid of the flu quickly, you have duties to attend to!
God is with you.
I hope you have speedy recovery from the flu! How can you have caught a flu during summer? That's not very orthodox - excuse the pun.
Concerning the original question: why do the catholics therefore insist on them being the authority over us? I was speaking to some catholic theologians who told me that the meaning of the immaculate conception has evolved to now mean something that we can recognise today in our Church. The same goes with every single error in in their Church - they openly said that our biggest error is being outside of Rome's authority as Saint Peter IS the head of the apostles.
Their only qualm with us is we are outside of Rome.
I agree by the way with everything you said. You are 100% correct.
Concerning the original question: why do the catholics therefore insist on them being the authority over us? I was speaking to some catholic theologians who told me that the meaning of the immaculate conception has evolved to now mean something that we can recognise today in our Church. The same goes with every single error in in their Church - they openly said that our biggest error is being outside of Rome's authority as Saint Peter IS the head of the apostles.
i don't understand how must we be "inside/under Rome" as to outside Rome. We are the Church of Alexandria.
HGB David said it ones that despite all the dogmas different between us and them, before any dialogue between us and them they insist on use believing "The Primacy of Saint Peter"...which is logically, theologically and politically unacceptable.
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=9523.msg117313#msg117313 date=1280586094]
Concerning the original question: why do the catholics therefore insist on them being the authority over us? I was speaking to some catholic theologians who told me that the meaning of the immaculate conception has evolved to now mean something that we can recognise today in our Church. The same goes with every single error in in their Church - they openly said that our biggest error is being outside of Rome's authority as Saint Peter IS the head of the apostles.
i don't understand how must we be "inside/under Rome" as to outside Rome. We are the Church of Alexandria.
HGB David said it ones that despite all the dogmas different between us and them, before any dialogue between us and them they insist on use believing "The Primacy of Saint Peter"...which is logically, theologically and politically unacceptable.
Of course I agree ya Mina with Bishop David. But i'm asking why THEY (The catholics) insist on the condition of their patriarch being the head of our Church? I mean, what do they have to gain?? Is it really for power?? What is their motive? Do they really believe that a Church is established on a person? or on that person's faith?
Yes.
We do not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son
This has always confused me, especially if all three components of the Holy Trinity are equal. Since Christ said, "I and my Father are one," why is it that we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from just the father?
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9523.msg117307#msg117307 date=1280564188]
We do not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son
This has always confused me, especially if all three components of the Holy Trinity are equal. Since Christ said, "I and my Father are one," why is it that we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from just the father?
Father Peter Farrington can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the reason (as far as I understand it):
The Father is the Source. From the Father, proceeds His Son, His Word. A perpetual Father to a perpetual Son. Through the Son, everything was made. Everything was created through the Son.
So if everything was created through the Son, it would mean that the Life Giving Holy Spirit proceeds THROUGH the Son, not FROM the Son.
There's a huge difference. The Son is not the Source. Its the Father.
At 1st glance, it is quite easy to think that this is a trivial matter. But its at the basic fundamental root of basic theology. Its not a trivial issue at all.
If we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, it means the Trinity is no longer a Trinity. It changes everything.
I would love it if Fr. Peter, who is a theologian, could elaborate on this, and perhaps even correct me if I've mis-stated anything.
I'm no theologian, but clearly, we DO believe in a Trinity. That's not rocket science, and it is abundantly clear that if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son AND the Father, then this impacts everything. I know theology is not the easiest subject, and I even look to people such as Fr. Peter for continual guidance, but it is foolish to assume that this is a trivial issue.
So, when bishops, metropolitans etc, and even patriarchs make such a mistake by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from BOTH the Father AND the Son, they are not children. They are not immature. This a serious problem. If I made that mistake, so be it. But, this coming from a Patriarch???!!!
And the Catholics want us to have ONE Patriarch (theirs!) so that the Church can be safe from any dogmatical errors is ludicrous - especially when their own Church is spurting out heresies left, right and center.
I must tell you something - its VERY difficult, as an Egyptian Orthodox Christian, to actually appreciate your Church. Its hard - perhaps we see our Church often as a social gathering, or as a place of worship (like any other). But those who are are not Coptic value us. When you see the respect our Church has amongst other Orthodox denominations - you'll begin to see why we cannot go around accepting such heresies and swallow them - just in the name of unity. Its impossible.
I am 99% sure the Catholics will come out (in the near or late future) and tell us ".. Yes! That's what we meant, it was a problem of semantics.. the Holy Spirit proceeds THROUGH the Son, from the Father. It was just a terrible misunderstanding".
A terrible misunderstanding?? One that caused a division and was wicked in its administration?? Now we in the era of communication. We can do acrobatics with how we communicate with one another, and yet this error will be so hard to correct for the Catholics. They will have to lose face over it. They cannot, after all these erroneous dogmas, expect ANYONE to want to be under their leadership. Its not possible. Its not even desirable.
I don't want it, and I happen to be a proponent of the Catholic Church!!!
H.H. covered a lot interesting points concerning the Coptic Orthodox Church. He also touched on the Primacy of Rome, this is referenced on pg. 13-14. A specific and logical point that His Holiness makes, which I took for granted, and not mentioned earlier, was that: St. Peter was martyred in approx. 67 A.D. and St. John was still living. St. John the Beloved is the longest living of the apostles, even to the year 100 A.D. as reckoned by all Church historians. Since St. John is an apostle, a witness to Christ personally, attendant at the Lord's Supper, having placed his head on the Bosom of Our Lord, and having been entrusted with the care of the Virgin Mary, would he be subject to a theoretical successor to St. Peter? St. John, as one of the 12 Apostles, ecclesiastically and by all accord would be at a higher position then any of the reigning bishops at the time. It would be impossible, by any account, that any theoretical successor to St. Peter would have any jurisdiction over St. John. This reinforces the issue that there was no primacy, and that each jurisdiction was responsible for its own jurisdiction.
It is a very wonderful article, but this particular portion I thought was appropriate to mention at this juncture.
Also, it is known that the Church of Antioch was established by St. Peter and St. Paul.
St. Ignatius was ordained by St. Peter as his successor in Antioch.
The state of the decline of the Roman Coliseum is related to the taking of marble and limestone to build the current St. Peter's Basilica.
By itself, in the self same Roman Tradition, the Primacy is inconsistent.
No innovation, no changes, no waffling, no added ingredients, no artificial additives. 100% Pure Concentrated Orthodoxy Orange Juice.
It has been allowed in the past that the Pope of Rome might be a court of final appeal in situations that could not be resolved by the Holy Synod of a local Church. But in fact being able to appeal to another Patriarch tended to create as many problems as were ever solved. A notional primacy of honour might also be allowed, since the bishop of Rome was bishop of the Imperial capital.
When the bishop of Rome agreed with another Church leader then he might be appealed to as a support in some controversy. But of course there were many times when the bishop of Rome was on the wrong side of a controversy, what then? It seems that he was much less likely to be referred to as an authority.
Nevertheless in Rome itself there was a very rapid development of the idea that the bishop of Rome was the head and ruler of the whole Church and only needed to speak for any issue to be resolved. Leo of Rome already displayed this false ecclesiology. It was not accepted in the East. Those times when the bishop of Rome had most authority were only when the Emperor needed some sort of unity with the West more than he needed unity of the Eastern Church. If the Emperor had the upper hand then it was not unknown for Popes to be held in prison in Constantinople until they obeyed the Emperor.
There are of course a letters etc which can be used to show how highly correspondents thought of the Pope. But flowery words in a letter are not the same as actions. And it is clear that practically the Eastern Church never accepted the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, even if they granted him a primacy of honour. Even in the West the Pope of Rome was not allowed a universal jurisdiction - even though he tried to exercise one. In 553 AD when the new Pope came back from Constantinople he could only find two bishops and a priest to consecrate him, all the rest of the Western Church refused to have anything to do with him, and parts of the West were separated from Rome for 150 years. The Church in England used Rome as a useful court of appeal but tended to ignore the instructions of the Pope.
The history of the papacy is the history of increasing claims to universal jurisdiction. But it is also the history of a continuing rejection of these claims by the East, and the resistance of these claims in the West. It seems to Rome that the Church needs a central organising figure, but the Orthodox Church resists this idea as a heterodox ecclesiology. It changes everything. It means that there are really no bishops at all in the Church except the Pope of Rome. In fact the primacy of each bishop, and the existence of local Churches has protected the Orthodox Church from many errors. When one place is infected it is possible for the wider Church to bring about health and healing. If there is only one bishop, then when he falls, and Popes have often fallen into error, then the whole Church falls with him.
I am working on a booklet that considers the Roman Catholic beliefs from an Orthodox point of view. Not because I have anything but the warmest feelings towards the Roman Catholics I deal with and enjoy spending time with, but because it seems to me that it has become too easy for our Coptic youth to become influenced by those Catholic ideas which are error. We need to rediscover the value and substance of our Orthodox tradition and not easily accept another tradition whether Catholic or Protestant.
Father Peter
Second comparison: not sure what you mean. Please clarify. Are you saying the present Coptic rite we are praying is what St. Mark gave us? Then no, that’s way too simplistic to describe it, and history is a lot more complex than what we caricature it to be. And this is being fair.
Also, paradox: What if the pope said "ex cathedra" that the pope is never infallible? Lol
There is also another issue, where both MP and EP historically have lead to, which is called “Caesaropapism”. This is the belief that the Orthodox Christian emperor of an official Orthodox Christian empire (Constantinople in the ancient world, Moscow in later times) would be the leader of the whole Church and would enforce the convening of councils to pass dogmatic decrees. While the Orthodox emperor was convenient in ancient Christian history, to make it a necessary part and aim of Orthodox hierarchy and leadership is no different than RC papal infallibility.
Finally, EOs also have a hypothetical basis of ecumenical councils being the authority that trumps papal infallibility. This is considered conciliar infallibility, and the word “ecumenical” is sometimes interpreted as “infallible”. This idea is simply a convenient replacement of papal infallibility with the councils, and does not show much flexibility of the local authorities of each Church as a good representation of the Catholic Church; neither does it acknowledge the historical reality of the complexities of such types of authority.
Altogether, while EOs do agree with us AGAINST the RCs, they have yet to have any consistent understanding of ecclesiastical authority in a realistic sense, and are filled with many disagreements in that regard. There is one bishop who published a paper on Church authority and councils that agree with OO understanding of authority, written by Metropolitan Hilarion.
http://silouanthompson.net/2014/06/reception-of-ecumenical-councils-in-the-early-church/
Unfortunately, this paper is ignored among most of the EOs and they continue to teach variants of Church authority that could potentially lead to conflict with OO beliefs, which is why unity at the moment is at a stalemate.
“What if the pope said "ex cathedra" that the pope is never infallible?”
Lol! I like the way you think. Catholics have given two answers to your paradox:
1. That will never happen
2. If it happened it would never be “ex cathedra”
Again, it shows how meaningless this doctrine really is...or to be fair, maybe I just yet to fully comprehend its usefulness or tranditional dogmatic necessity
But I think they interpret "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" as "there shall be not a single mistake ever that you will work to correct"
I personally am not one to believe that getting a minor thing wrong means that the gates of hell have prevailed... if that thing is noticed and corrected. (Please let me know if I am wrong about this)