Arguments against the Supremacy of the Papacy/Petrine Primacy?

[Antony in Tx]

Either you are not able to comprehend the arguments other people are making in this discussion or you are intentionally employing a tactic of "answering" well thought-out points made by other posters by spewing out unrelated stuff.

In either case I'd respectfully ask you to refrain from "debating" as you aren't going to convince anybody of the RCC's superiority with random argumentation, and too many threads on TAW are already quite hard to read through due you to insistently filling them with pointless yanking.

I vote for this!

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Either you are not able to comprehend the arguments other people are making in this discussion or you are intentionally employing a tactic of "answering" well thought-out points made by other posters by spewing out unrelated stuff.

In either case I'd respectfully ask you to refrain from "debating" as you aren't going to convince anybody of the RCC's superiority with this random argumentation, and too many threads on TAW are already quite hard to read through due you to insistently filling them with pointless yanking.

Your comment is off topic, I was arguing that John Chrysostom taught that Peter received the keys of heaven when he was interpreting the Gospel of Mathew, and that by doing so, he left a testimony that the ancient church believed in the function of Peter as primus inter pares. and everything that may happened later with a different optic, is not as authentically orthodox. And as this topic is about the primacy of Peter, I am not arguing off topic.

Your argumentation is that I am not going to convince you of this fact, ok, you are speaking by you, and that is all right, but, Are you pretending to speak in the name of everyone who may enter this topic?, you can show your own disagreement, I agree, but that cannot mean that you are representing the 6,000'000,000 human beings that may enter here, Are you?

 

[Tzaousios]

Yes, I imagined that, in fact that is a real problem among orthodox, they are been infiltrated by protestants, converts that don’t kneel before sacred things or that refuse to kiss icons, they only carry their anti-Catholicism into Orthodoxy, and as a matter of fact Protestant arguments are also used by converts to Orthodoxy against Catholicism, particularly against Rome’s primacy of jurisdiction. And yes, I also see many Protestants that argue against Rome using EO arguments, in that way we see that extremes meet. This meeting point is pure anti-Catholicism, because it limits the scope of the whole Catholic Church in the see of Rome, while there are more than 3000 dioceses in communion with Rome and many of them have never broke with it.

So, by this reasoning, everyone should stick to their "ancestral religion," so to speak. If a Protestant should convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism, they are only so generically or in disguise. They will never be on equal footing with cradle Orthodox and Catholic, and will always be suspected of Catholic-hating and iconoclasm.

 

[Macarius]

We must have into account that the older the reference the better, and as I told you, Saint John Chrysostom was the first Patriarch of Constantinople, and his homilies on the verses of the Gospels of Mathew and John that explains openly the role of Peter in the church are fully in agreement of the Catholic teaching. If subsequent patriarchs or eastern teachers taught different, then they were not being quite orthodox.

Should I just copy and paste my reply?

You are wrongly applying those Chrysostom quotes, and your attempt to use Chrysostom as a pro-papacy figure makes zero sense if you know the history of his life and ministry.

Please refer to my prior post.

 

[RobNJ]

Should I just copy and paste my reply?

You are wrongly applying those Chrysostom quotes, and your attempt to use Chrysostom as a pro-papacy figure makes zero sense if you know the history of his life and ministry.

Please refer to my prior post.

Don;t confuse him with facts! It ruins his already weak argument!

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Should I just copy and paste my reply?

You are wrongly applying those Chrysostom quotes, and your attempt to use Chrysostom as a pro-papacy figure makes zero sense if you know the history of his life and ministry.

Please refer to my prior post.

Well if you appeal to his life, to his experience, let us talk about his letters to Pope Saint Innocent I, there we can see that Saint John Chrysostom appeals to Pope, as his superior, to tell him the injustice perpetrated against him when he was sent into exile.

We also can read that Pope Innocent answers him, giving him consolation, and then Pope writes to the church of Constantinople to consolate it, and to refer that John was unjustly deposed. If you ask why Pope didn't put him back into the see of Constantinople, we have to remember that Emperors claimed jurisdiction on the Church and that such move will cause another dispute between Rome's Pope and Constantinople's Emperor. But in fact the Pope recognized him as the living Bishop of the see, in exile.


CHURCH FATHERS: Correspondence with Pope Innocent I (Chrysostom)

 

[Thekla]

Well if you appeal to his life, to his experience, lest us talk about his letters to Pope Saint Innocent I, there we can see that Saint John Chrysostom appeals to Pope, as his superior, to tell him the injustice perpetrated against him when he was sent into exile.

We also can read that Pope Innocent answers him, giving him consolation, and then Pope writes to the church of Constantinople to consolate it, and to refer that John was unjustly deposed. If you ask why Pope didn't put him back into the see of Constantinople, we have to remember that Emperors claimed jurisdiction on the Church and that such move will cause another dispute between Rome's Pope and Constantinople's Emperor.


CHURCH FATHERS: Correspondence with Pope Innocent I (Chrysostom)

See Chrysostom's letters of appeal to other bishops as well.

 

[Ignatius21]

At this point, I'm respectfully bowing out of further "debate" on this topic. Either we're miscommunicating or I'm simply not smart enough to see the coherence of your various arguments.

Yes, I imagined that, in fact that is a real problem among orthodox, they are been infiltrated by protestants, converts that don’t kneel before sacred things or that refuse to kiss icons, they only carry their anti-Catholicism into Orthodoxy, and as a matter of fact Protestant arguments are also used by converts to Orthodoxy against Catholicism, particularly against Rome’s primacy of jurisdiction. And yes, I also see many Protestants that argue against Rome using EO arguments, in that way we see that extremes meet. This meeting point is pure anti-Catholicism, because it limits the scope of the whole Catholic Church in the see of Rome, while there are more than 3000 dioceses in communion with Rome and many of them have never broke with it.

I truly don't understand what you're trying to say. Where have you seen an Orthodox church that's been "infiltrated" by Protestants? Have you witnessed them refusing to kiss icons? Or, as you said, is this something you're purely imagining? Some Protestants do argue using EO arguments, probably because the EO were using those arguments centuries before the Reformation ever took place and the same arguments still apply. You are leveling the charge that both Protestants and Orthodox are "extreme" in their "pure anti-Catholicism," but on what basis do you make that charge? Does disagreeing with the Catholic dogma, or Catholic evaluation of history, make one "anti-Catholic?" Are you therefore "anti-Orthodox?" Are you "anti-Protestant?" I'm not anti-anything. I'm pro-honesty in evaluating historical arguments, and pro-objectivity wherever such is possible. The best I've been able to arrive at, using my fallible reasoning and much prayer, is the belief that Orthodoxy best fits the pattern of doctrine, worship, prayer, discipline, ecclesiology, and Scriptural interpretation of the early church. I can very well be wrong, as can you or anyone else.

I cannot see how that is motivated by "anti-Catholicism."

Now, yes I've met a few very zealous converts to Orthodoxy who either strongly reject the Catholicism they've left. I've met converts from Protestantism who likewise do the same. Then I've met ex-Protestant converts who are now Catholic and seem to have devoted their lives to ridding themselves of their Protestant past. But these converts are not normative among any tradition...they're pugnacious zealots who feel the need to disparage what they've left rather than appreciating it as a step along their path.

Yes the fact is that we can answer to them not with elaborated theories, but bible in hand, Do you want to try?

Frankly no, because I don't expect that "debate" will go any differently from the current one.

We must have into account that the older the reference the better, and as I told you, Saint John Chrysostom was the first Patriarch of Constantinople, and his homilies on the verses of the Gospels of Mathew and John that explains openly the role of Peter in the church are fully in agreement of the Catholic teaching. If subsequent patriarchs or eastern teachers taught different, then they were not being quite orthodox.

Again, you've either overlooked or ignored what Macarius posted (and then offered to repost). This is why I don't think you're seeking an actual discussion of anything, but rather prefer to state certain things as true and then disallow any interpretation to the contrary. Forgive me if I've misunderstood.

At any rate, God bless you.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

So, by this reasoning, everyone should stick to their "ancestral religion," so to speak. If a Protestant should convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism, they are only so generically or in disguise. They will never be on equal footing with cradle Orthodox and Catholic, and will always be suspected of Catholic-hating and iconoclasm.

Let us agree with your statement of "ancestral religion", if that were true, you may stick to the Catholic Church in communion with Rome, because your ancestors were catholic before being protestant. But, the case is that it is true, it is not my invention that many Eastern Orthodox Christians are aware of protestants who when converting into EO, bring part of their theology with them.

I also see many Protestants who convert to Catholicism, and by doing so they are accepting the Teachings of the Councils, the Teachings of the Fathers, and of course the primacy of Rome as the leading Dioceses, the Apostolic See. Many Ex-Protestants are great Catholics, let us say Scott Hahn, and for them it takes a large sacrifice to deny all the anti-Catholic arguments learnt during their protestant past, “The harlot of Babylon”, “the Pope is the Antichrist”, etc. These arguments are also brought by Protestants to Eastern Orthodoxy, and they teach them about. Something that for ethnic Eastern Orthodox is not only estrange but unorthodox.

 

[Ignatius21]

OK, I know I said I wouldn't engage any further in this thread...so I'll do it in a generic way!

Earlier Chrysostom's homily 54 on Matthew was quoted as "proof" that St. John held to the Roman Catholic understanding of the papacy...implying not only that he held to a primacy of Peter among the apostles, but to a primacy of universal jurisdiction over the apostles and indeed the entire church. Such is the RCC understanding of the power and authority of the Papacy, is it not? The quote marshalled in favor of such Papal authority relates to the "keys of the kingdom" and says:

I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35 How then is He less, who has given such gifts, has effected such things?

Yet only a few paragraphs above, he wrote of Matt. 16:18, the classic proof text for the Papacy proving beyond all shadow of a doubt that the church was built upon Peter and through him all the bishops of Rome, :

3. What then says Christ? You are Simon, the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas. Thus since you have proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begot you; all but saying, As you are son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, You are Son of Jonas; but since he had said, Son of God, to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begot Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because you are shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.

Emphasis, of course, is mine.

Now, does this not run counter to the interpretation that the "rock" of the Church is Peter himself? Does it not say that to St. John, the "rock" was the confession of faith given by Peter? That upon the confession of Christ as Messiah and Son of God, the church will be built and will never be shaken? Can I do my victory dance and conclude that I have slam-dunked the opposing case and it's forevermore settled that John Chrysostom was anti-Papacy?

No. Because that would be utterly absurd. In a broader view, many church fathers referred to both Peter and his confession as "the rock" in Matt. 16:18. I believe Chrysostom did this also.

Does this quote prove that he rejected Rome's claim to absolute jurisdiction? No. Does the quote about the keys prove that he accepted that claim? No. Are all the quotes essentially inconclusive and irrelevant to an argument that really heated up centuries after Chrysostom preached these homiles? Yes.

Forgive my rant, but one thing that always drove me nuts about Protestant-Catholic debates (often featuring an ex-Catholic debating an ex-Protestant) was that they incessantly tried to find 16th+ century arguments playing out in 1st-6th century writings. As though the fathers were even engaged in such matters. Each side seemingly needed to find its own case in history, or else needed to find the opposing case discredited there. Very often neither party, and (forgive me) especially the Catholic party, could simply admit that they were digging in the wrong sandbox, looking for evidence that really wasn't there.

I once debated (I use the term loosely) with a Catholic apologist who was insisting that the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch established an early case for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Not just "could be interepreted in such a manner" or "isn't opposed to it," but that it did establish the case. Point of fact...his letter to the Romans was the only one of the seven (known reliably to us today) that didn't mention a bishop there at all. Nothing. Nada. Not his concern. This apologist kept responding as though I were saying that this disproved the Papacy. I wasn't. And for the life of me, I could not get him to just admit that the Ignatian letters simply did not address the issue and were therefore of no use in concluding anything either way. It seemed that, for him, those letters had to confirm his belief.

Anyway, that's all for my rant. I hope this illustrates why it drives me insane when isolated quotations are pulled out of letters from 15+ centuries ago and just peppered around as though they settled the matter. More often than not, I find these quotes simply weren't even concerned with what later became issues and divisions, and therefore don't really apply directly.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

OK, I know I said I wouldn't engage any further in this thread...so I'll do it in a generic way!

Earlier Chrysostom's homily 54 on Matthew was quoted as "proof" that St. John held to the Roman Catholic understanding of the papacy...implying not only that he held to a primacy of Peter among the apostles, but to a primacy of universal jurisdiction over the apostles and indeed the entire church. Such is the RCC understanding of the power and authority of the Papacy, is it not? The quote marshalled in favor of such Papal authority relates to the "keys of the kingdom" and says:



Yet only a few paragraphs above, he wrote of Matt. 16:18, the classic proof text for the Papacy proving beyond all shadow of a doubt that the church was built upon Peter and through him all the bishops of Rome, :



Emphasis, of course, is mine.

Now, does this not run counter to the interpretation that the "rock" of the Church is Peter himself? Does it not say that to St. John, the "rock" was the confession of faith given by Peter? That upon the confession of Christ as Messiah and Son of God, the church will be built and will never be shaken? Can I do my victory dance and conclude that I have slam-dunked the opposing case and it's forevermore settled that John Chrysostom was anti-Papacy?

No. Because that would be utterly absurd. In a broader view, many church fathers referred to both Peter and his confession as "the rock" in Matt. 16:18. I believe Chrysostom did this also.

Does this quote prove that he rejected Rome's claim to absolute jurisdiction? No. Does the quote about the keys prove that he accepted that claim? No. Are all the quotes essentially inconclusive and irrelevant to an argument that really heated up centuries after Chrysostom preached these homiles? Yes.

Forgive my rant, but one thing that always drove me nuts about Protestant-Catholic debates (often featuring an ex-Catholic debating an ex-Protestant) was that they incessantly tried to find 16th+ century arguments playing out in 1st-6th century writings. As though the fathers were even engaged in such matters. Each side seemingly needed to find its own case in history, or else needed to find the opposing case discredited there. Very often neither party, and (forgive me) especially the Catholic party, could simply admit that they were digging in the wrong sandbox, looking for evidence that really wasn't there.

I once debated (I use the term loosely) with a Catholic apologist who was insisting that the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch established an early case for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Not just "could be interepreted in such a manner" or "isn't opposed to it," but that it did establish the case. Point of fact...his letter to the Romans was the only one of the seven (known reliably to us today) that didn't mention a bishop there at all. Nothing. Nada. Not his concern. This apologist kept responding as though I were saying that this disproved the Papacy. I wasn't. And for the life of me, I could not get him to just admit that the Ignatian letters simply did not address the issue and were therefore of no use in concluding anything either way. It seemed that, for him, those letters had to confirm his belief.

Anyway, that's all for my rant. I hope this illustrates why it drives me insane when isolated quotations are pulled out of letters from 15+ centuries ago and just peppered around as though they settled the matter. More often than not, I find these quotes simply weren't even concerned with what later became issues and divisions, and therefore don't really apply directly.

Yes, It is right that Chrysostom also understood the Rock as the faith that saint Peter uttered, But, it is also true that Chrysostom said of Saint Peter to be:

Do you see how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as a brazen pillar, and as a wall; Jeremiah 1:18 but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.

Now, What Part of "...this man in every part of the world..." is incompatible with Petrine primacy?

 

[Ignatius21]

Yes, It is right that Chrysostom also understood the Rock as the faith that saint Peter uttered, But, it is also true that Chrysostom said of Saint Peter to be:



Now, What Part of "...this man in every part of the world..." is incompatible with Petrine primacy?

Nothing, and thank you for proving my point.

If "Petrine primacy" is understood to encompass the entire Roman Catholic doctrine of "Papal supremacy with immediate and universal jurisdiction over the entire worldwide Church" as it was eventually codified at Vatican I (some...what...1300 years after Chrysostom spoke those words?), we can also say that your quotation neither establishes nor refutes it.

It simply does not speak to the issue.

When read in context, Chrysostom's point in saying this was to contrast Jeremiah (in his role as steadfast hearld to Israel) with Peter (in his role as steadfast herald to all nations). The emphasis there is on all ethnic nations as opposed to ethnic Jews. His concern in this part of this homily cannot be said to primarily be about an administrative role in an ecclesial hierarchy in relation to other bishops...if at all...

His concern is about the universality of the gospel message to all people and not only to Jews or Gentiles.

So again, I have never said that these quotes are incompatible with your position, nor that they disprove it. I have only said that they do not establish it, because they are essentially irrelevant to it.

And therein lies a key difference in how we are using these texts. I claim that his homily could be, or could not be, compatible with much later dogmas about Roman Papacy...it does not address them. You claim that these quotes prove that he supported it. That is a far-reaching claim that simply goes well beyond the evidence. I believe you state this because Rome needs it to be true.

When, as Macarius stated, one considers the life and politics of Chrysostom, I personally believe that if we played the "what if he came back from the past and answered our question today?" game, he'd fall on the Orthodox side, that "Petrine primacy" DOES NOT EQUAL "Roman Papal Universal Jurisdiction."

But of course, that's speculation on both sides, so it's of little value in resolving the matter.

Didn't I say twice that I was finished with this thread? It's like a flame to a moth with me.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Ignatius21,

Why didn't you quoted the paragraph I did, when exposing that Chrysostom taught of the Rock as of the Faith of Peter? To me is like You are trying to stablish the classical protestant argument of "Peter is not the Rock", you still use protestant arguments to validate your lack of communion with the see of Rome. I recognize that You now accept that some Church Fathers teach that Peter and the Faith of Peter are both the Rock, But you don't finish to accept that it is pointless to have a Presiding head, a Rock of faith, A fisher of man, A Chief of the Choir, who lacks of juristdiction over the Whole Church. It is simply pointless.

Now, in practical terms, in now a day facts, Why do Eastern Orthodox patriarchs are in dispute for cannonical territories?, Do they need an Emperor to set order?, You can't argue that they need a new council, because nobody would make patriarchs to submit to the decisions of such a council. I sadly see Eastern Orthodoxy as a headless body, whose member are in continous disputes, Would you dare to say that such image is the image of the mystical Body of Christ in the World?.

In these fruits is where we can see that Papacy is not only an orthodox, historical, apostolical figure, but also a necesary figure to order the life of the whole church. To avoid endless disputes between "equal brothers"

 

[mrmccormo]

Roman Catholics spend a great deal of time and effort quoting Scripture, quoting early-church fathers, and referencing early-church tradition.

But I have yet to see how Peter being "first among equals" means that the Papacy become "first and only". In other words, Peter was the team captain of the football team. When the rest of the football team goes to play football on another field because Peter kicked them off the team for not following his changes to the rules of football, is Peter still the team captain of the football team, and does he also get to change the rules of football even though he has no team?

 

[mrmccormo]

I sadly see Eastern Orthodoxy as a headless body, whose member are in continous disputes, Would you dare to say that such image is the image of the mystical Body of Christ in the World?.

The Eastern Orthodox church should indeed be seen as a "headless body", since "He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church" (Colossians 1:17-18)

Or do you suggest that the Orthodox church is without Christ? Or perhaps you admit that prior to the establishment of the Roman Bishop as the Pope, the early church was also without Christ, since it, too, was "headless" by your observations.

 

[Ignatius21]

Ignatius21,

Why didn't you quoted the paragraph I did, when exposing that Chrysostom taught of the Rock as of the Faith of Peter? To me is like You are trying to stablish the classical protestant argument of "Peter is not the Rock", you still use protestant arguments to validate your lack of communion with the see of Rome.

I don't know...I could just as easily ask why you didn't quote the paragraph about Chrystostom teaching the Rock as the Faith of Peter, when you were trying to show that he believed Peter to have received the keys? The pot and kettle are both black. Your attitude toward me and everyone else on this thread so far has been one of superiority. We are guilty of subverting the facts, while you ride the high horse of objectivity and neutrality. We are culpable of selectively quoting church fathers, but you are not. We deliberately slip and slither our way around accepting what to you is as obvious as the sun. That we do not agree with your version of the facts is not a matter for intellectual discussion, but rather evidence of our insubordination to the obvious head of Christ's Church on Earth.

You are on the horse wielding the spear of truth, and we are trampled underfoot by the self-evident superiority of your case. How very like your avatar picture. If it makes you feel better, I consider myself slain by your superior argument. Obviously, until I have accepted the teaching of Rome as infallible, I'm not capable of honestly dealing with either Scripture or the church fathers. Shame on me.

I recognize that You now accept that some Church Fathers teach that Peter and the Faith of Peter are both the Rock, But you don't finish to accept that it is pointless to have a Presiding head, a Rock of faith, A fisher of man, A Chief of the Choir, who lacks of juristdiction over the Whole Church. It is simply pointless.

Yay, honesty!!! You've tipped your hand and revealed your philosophical presupposition as to how the church must be organized, and therefore your real reason for interpreting the Bible and the Fathers as you do. It's because you must. You've already reached your conclusion long before seeing the evidence. The fact that it doesn't make sense to you, means it must be wrong.

Now, in practical terms, in now a day facts, Why do Eastern Orthodox patriarchs are in dispute for cannonical territories?, Do they need an Emperor to set order?, You can't argue that they need a new council, because nobody would make patriarchs to submit to the decisions of such a council. I sadly see Eastern Orthodoxy as a headless body, whose member are in continous disputes, Would you dare to say that such image is the image of the mystical Body of Christ in the World?.

Yes, how very unlike the Church of the first millenium, when all the bishops perfectly agreed, never fought over territories, and all simply submitted to the Pope of Rome, and never once ignored him, and certainly never condemned one as a heretic. Would that Orthodoxy were united under a single, visible head to arbitrate all disputes peacefully...well, until there were two such heads...who would be deposed by a council and replaced with a third, leading to three heads plus a council, that would eventually resolve itself with much politics. Now THAT is the image of the mystical Body of Christ in the World. Nothing like certainty and peaceful resolution of conflict. How I envy that.

This time I'm sticking to my guns. Further discussion is pointless for either of us. Your guy on a horse beats my guy being eaten by lions.

Over and out.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I don't know...I could just as easily ask why you didn't quote the paragraph about Chrystostom teaching the Rock as the Faith of Peter, when you were trying to show that he believed Peter to have received the keys? The pot and kettle are both black. Your attitude toward me and everyone else on this thread so far has been one of superiority. We are guilty of subverting the facts, while you ride the high horse of objectivity and neutrality. We are culpable of selectively quoting church fathers, but you are not. We deliberately slip and slither our way around accepting what to you is as obvious as the sun. That we do not agree with your version of the facts is not a matter for intellectual discussion, but rather evidence of our insubordination to the obvious head of Christ's Church on Earth.

I don’t think it is proper for you to play the role of victim. That gains you nothing.

You are on the horse wielding the spear of truth, and we are trampled underfoot by the self-evident superiority of your case. How very like your avatar picture. If it makes you feel better, I consider myself slain by your superior argument. Obviously, until I have accepted the teaching of Rome as infallible, I'm not capable of honestly dealing with either Scripture or the church fathers. Shame on me.

Your irony is not far from impiety, and I guess you already know who is the one portrayed in my avatar, but for those who are not familiar I will explain. My avatar is the Apostle James, as Spanish people use to portrait him, they use to call him “Santiago Matamoros” or “Saint James Moorslayer”. When Hispanics were fighting back moors from the Spanish peninsula, they commended their battles to Saint James, brother of our Lord Jesus, and portrait him as a battling knight defeating Muslims.

Spanish soldiers asked his help when fighting by crying “Santiago!!!”, It is said that in the final battle Christian soldiers attacked Granada, and the queen Isabel the Catholic was in the field of battle praying while her soldiers were fighting until they got victory. From that point Spain rid of Muslims and was prepared to be the First Christian Empire expanding the faith of the Apostles. Pusillanimity was not the sign of Spain.

Yay, honesty!!! You've tipped your hand and revealed your philosophical presupposition as to how the church must be organized, and therefore your real reason for interpreting the Bible and the Fathers as you do. It's because you must. You've already reached your conclusion long before seeing the evidence. The fact that it doesn't make sense to you, means it must be wrong.

No, I have shown that Petrine Primacy was believed in the ancient church, I am only appealing to your logic, to your thoughts, to get a reasonable cause which may explain that primacy of honor is the same as primacy of decoration or of ornament.

Yes, how very unlike the Church of the first millenium, when all the bishops perfectly agreed, never fought over territories, and all simply submitted to the Pope of Rome, and never once ignored him, and certainly never condemned one as a heretic. Would that Orthodoxy were united under a single, visible head to arbitrate all disputes peacefully...well, until there were two such heads...who would be deposed by a council and replaced with a third, leading to three heads plus a council, that would eventually resolve itself with much politics. Now THAT is the image of the mystical Body of Christ in the World. Nothing like certainty and peaceful resolution of conflict. How I envy that.

So, Are you arguing that we should make it a canon of the church that power disputes are part of our essence? You are bringing the disputes of the XIV century on the three popes case in the church, but tell me, are canonical territories disputes part of the past of Eastern Orthodox Church, or are they X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI… … XXI century issue. Is there at sight a new Council to solve such controversies? Or the status quo is a result of the impossibility of the Eastern Orthodoxy to call for a new council to fix it.

Petrine Primacy is not a decorative figure, is an order referent.

This time I'm sticking to my guns. Further discussion is pointless for either of us. Your guy on a horse beats my guy being eaten by lions.

Over and out.

Santiago!!!

 

[buzuxi02]

Your comment is off topic, I was arguing that John Chrysostom taught that Peter received the keys of heaven when he was interpreting the Gospel of Mathew, and that by doing so, he left a testimony that the ancient church believed in the function of Peter as primus inter pares. and everything that may happened later with a different optic, is not as authentically orthodox. And as this topic is about the primacy of Peter, I am not arguing off topic.

Actually St John Chrysostom said the same thing about John when interpreting the fourth gospel:

"For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence..... Now will he appear before us, not acting a part, (for with him there is nothing counterfeit, nor fiction, nor fable,) but with unmasked head he proclaims to us the truth unmasked; not making the audience believe him other than he is by carriage, by look, by voice, needing for the delivery of his message no instruments of music, as harp, lyre, or any other the like, for he effects all with his tongue, uttering a voice which is sweeter and more profitable than that of any harper or any music. All heaven is his stage; his theater, the habitable world; his audience, all angels; and of men as many as are angels already, or desire to become so...."(John chrysostom homily 1 on the gospel of John)


Papal apologists spew quotes from the Fathers in favor of their system with hopes that no one is familiar with the writings of those Fathers. Oh and anyone who has read John Chrysostom knows that he considers Antioch to be the most blessed city not rome. because it was in Antioch where the word christian was first used.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Actually St John Chrysostom said the same thing about John when interpreting the fourth gospel:

"For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence..... Now will he appear before us, not acting a part, (for with him there is nothing counterfeit, nor fiction, nor fable,) but with unmasked head he proclaims to us the truth unmasked; not making the audience believe him other than he is by carriage, by look, by voice, needing for the delivery of his message no instruments of music, as harp, lyre, or any other the like, for he effects all with his tongue, uttering a voice which is sweeter and more profitable than that of any harper or any music. All heaven is his stage; his theater, the habitable world; his audience, all angels; and of men as many as are angels already, or desire to become so...."(John chrysostom homily 1 on the gospel of John)


Papal apologists spew quotes from the Fathers in favor of their system with hopes that no one is familiar with the writings of those Fathers. Oh and anyone who has read John Chrysostom knows that he considers Antioch to be the most blessed city not rome. because it was in Antioch where the word christian was first used.

I imagine that John Chrysostom taught also that John was strongest than any rock as he said of Peter.

Do you see how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as a brazen pillar, and as a wall; Jeremiah 1:18 but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.

And obviously we have to go to John's Gospel to read what Saint John Apostle wrote of the relation of The Lord and Apostle Saint Peter:

{21:15} Then, when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
{21:16} He said to him again: “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
{21:17} He said to him a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was very grieved that he had asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” And so he said to him: “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my sheep.
{21:18} Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked wherever you wanted. But when you are older, you will extend your hands, and another shall gird you and lead you where you do not want to go.”
{21:19} Now he said this to signify by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”​

One only have to read the Acts of the Apostles to testify that Saint Peter plays the role of the head of the Church after Pentecost.

 

[Macarius]

Well if you appeal to his life, to his experience, let us talk about his letters to Pope Saint Innocent I, there we can see that Saint John Chrysostom appeals to Pope, as his superior, to tell him the injustice perpetrated against him when he was sent into exile.

Yes, because clearly the best way to answer a specific argument based on a part of St. John's life is to bring up another, unrelated, part of St. John's life.

You are just changing the subject. Stop. I WILL answer your point about his appeal to the Pope (as it is relevant to the broader issue), but YOU MUST ALSO ACCOUNT FOR ST. JOHN seemingly being FINE with living out of communion with the pope for the bulk of his ministry and even with being ordained by a man out of communion with the pope.

You've yet to offer a word of explanation on that.

On his appeal to the pope: St. John was, quite simply, appealing to the only patriarch NOT under imperial jurisdiction. The Western Empire was distinct from the Eastern at the time, and the other three patriarchs were part of the Eastern empire. The papacy, as the highest ranking patriarch (something you should know the East readily recognizes), made COMPLETE sense. Here was St. John, abused by the imperial offices, turning to a BROTHER patriarch (superior in rank, as Constantinople was ranked second), for consolation and support.

I see nothing in that action which suggests that St. John believed the pope to have JURISDICTION over him (i.e. the right to depose or ordain him), though it was not an infrequent action of the Byzantines to use the Roman bishop as an impartial (being non-Byzantine) 3rd party to settle ecclesiastical disputes.

In short, based on a proper understanding of Orthodox theology concerning the highest ranking bishop in the world (then Rome, now Constantinople as Rome is in schism), there is nothing in St. John's actions that conflicts with our theology.

There IS, however, something in conflict between YOUR interpretation of St. John and his willingness to live outside Rome's communion for so much of his early life and ministry - in particular because it wasn't even a controversial thing to him (i.e. he makes no large issue of it). ANY attempt to use St. John in support of a modern-style papacy just falls flat against the facts of his life.

Now, if I were to stand here and say something absurd like "Rome wasn't first in rank among the Patriarchs! Rome didn't have succession from St. Peter! Rome was NEVER used to settle disputes!" then yes, you'd be right to bring up St. John's appeals to the pope.

But we don't say those things. We readily would call Rome first if it confessed Orthodoxy. But we would never call it INFALLIBLY Orthodox, nor say that its rank of first implies absolute and unquestionable jurisdiction over every other bishop in the world and every council of every other bishop in the world. Which is what Roman papal doctrine amounts to, as no council can overturn a papacy, no council can be considered legitimate without the pope's approval, and every bishop serves only at the goodwill of the pope (as he can depose or appoint bishops at will).

I see absolutely NOTHING in St. John's life to suggest that the thought the papacy had such authority. In fact, given his early life and ministry, it would seem he thought quite the opposite (that a bishop appointed AGAINST Rome's wishes - indeed, even in schism with Rome - could still be a legitimate and fully Catholic-Orthodox bishop).

We also can read that Pope Innocent answers him, giving him consolation, and then Pope writes to the church of Constantinople to consolate it, and to refer that John was unjustly deposed. If you ask why Pope didn't put him back into the see of Constantinople, we have to remember that Emperors claimed jurisdiction on the Church and that such move will cause another dispute between Rome's Pope and Constantinople's Emperor. But in fact the Pope recognized him as the living Bishop of the see, in exile.

That all seems perfectly accurate and reasonable to me.

CHURCH FATHERS: Correspondence with Pope Innocent I (Chrysostom)

And you still manage to ignore the vast majority of my post.

Your quotes from St. John ONLY establish that St. Peter was, in his view, unique among the Apostles. It does NOTHING to establish the link between St. Peter and Rome EXCLUSIVELY, nor, and this is the really important step, does it do a single thing to INTERPRET that succession / authority in a way consistent with modern RCC views on the papacy (infallibility, absolute authority within the college of bishops, the single criterion of orthodoxy, etc.).

That doesn't mean it is inconsistent with the modern RCC views; I would point to St. John's life as evidence he didn't believe what the modern RCC does - but certainly these quotes are not problematic for the RCC.

They are not, however, in any way problematic for the EO. That's the issue here. You've quoted things at us that don't in any way conflict with our view point in order to tell us we are wrong. That's called a straw-man (i.e you are attacking a viewpoint we don't actually hold). What is worse for you is the PERSON you chose to use (St. John) actually appears to have held views different from the one's you espouse. So while these quotes in isolation do no harm to either your viewpoint or mine, St. John's LIFE does indeed do great harm to your attempt to build a case for an early papacy.

In Christ,
Macarius