I don't want a heated argument at all, patricius! If I came off that way in the least, I ask your forgiveness. That was not what I meant. I was trying to rhetorically ask questions that are food for thought in your journey, not put you on the spot as quizmaster.
The Church had the deposit of faith from apostolic times, but as false teachings about Our Lord arose, the need for clarification and declaration of orthodox (small o) doctrine would periodically crop up. That was the job of councils. They made their decisions under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yes, often the Bishop of Rome would send legates who would vote and participate and share the Pope's opinions. He would, as other patriarchs, sign off on official teachings.
After the Schism, there have been no major reasons for great councils, yet they still can be summoned. The Church has one head--JESUS CHRIST. A Church with two heads is a monster.
At the Council of Jerusalem, Peter was indeed in attendance. In Catholicism today, the Pope comes and all other bishops move aside and his decisions and leadership prevails. He is the head honcho, supreme, infallible. In the Bible we see JAMES sitting at the head of the table and in Acts 15:19 on the circumcision issue we hear James say " therefore I decide/judge..." and Peter does not. In fact, Peter is wrong on the issue while Paul is correct, and James makes the final decision. So you have a council IN JERUSALEM and the Bishop of Jerusalem, James, is the final word. In Galatians 2:9 Paul says that James is the first pillar of three, and when Paul returns there he mentions only James. Sounds Orthodox to me. Not Catholic.
In Rome, we know that Paul established the See far more than Peter and really did more to lay the groundwork and piety as well as charity of that church.
Matthew 18:18 the power of the keys is also given to the other apostles, not just Peter.
Let's look at the Fathers and early masters and historians of the Church. Are you familiar with Eusebius? The Matthew 16:18 stuff is only found in Matthew. Why isn't it in Mark? Eusebius says: "the friend and follower of Peter, whose teaching he repeats, does not record that Jesus said anything in reply to Peter's confession...probably because Peter did not speak of it in his teaching and wished it passed over in silence. But Peter published to all men his DENIAL, hence Mark records it. This is a proof that Peter was far removed from self-love, and was of a truth-loving disposition." I always thought that powerful. Very Orthodox for a holy man to only tell the world of his failures and inadequacies that the Lord heals rather than when he is given power and compliments. It doesn't seem that Eusebius sees the primacy as what Catholics see it to be. He sees it as what the other apostles receive only it came first. He's an archetype.
In 1 Peter 5:1 Peter calls himself a "fellow elder." Sounds very conciliar, Orthodox. Not Catholic. The Orthodox also see Paul and Peter very much as itinerant ministers, traveling and establishing, nourishing, and bolstering. Again, Peter had Rome and Antioch both as part of his travels in aiding in the establishment of those Sees. Why is Antioch not also a Pope of sorts? Could it be that Rome was primal because of location, power, prominence, and status at the time? It was the New York City of its day. When the capital of Rome moved to Constantinople, why do the Councils seek to give it the primacy?
Returning to Origen, what does he say?
"But if you think the whole church to be built by God upon that one Peter only, what would you say of John the son of thunder or each of the Apostles? Are we to venture to say that the gages of Hades do not prevail against Peter by a special privilege, but do prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? What is said surely belong to each and all of them, since all are "Peter" and "Rock" and the Church of God has been built on them ALL, and against none who are such do the gates of Hades prevail." He goes on to say more of the same and elaborate....sounds pretty Orthodox!
When St. Cyprian comes at odds with Pope Stephen, he goes out of his way to tell Stephen that, although he is a pope, he occupies no unique power over the other apostles, and that the Pope is clearly WRONG in his position.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, a See established by Peter and Paul much like Rome, is addressing the Romans and says, " I do not give you orders as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles. I am a convict." And in that letter he doesn't address the letter to the Pope or as universal bishop, but says, "To the church that is in charge of affairs in the Roman quarters."
So you see, the answer to your question is fairly simple. Teachings in the Church have always been of a conciliar nature. Bishops do not converge into councils unless there is a crisis of teaching or heterodoxy or heresy to be dispelled or debated. The Church HAS the deposit of faith it has carried 2,000 years. Each bishop, each patriarch, encapsulates the charism, the holiness, the legacy of the apostles, and they each are "PETERS." They are also Marks, Pauls, James, Thomas, and so on. The Church's head is Christ Jesus, and He works through the corpus of the Church, throughout many people. And if you look at Orthodoxy, there is a rich contribution by Russians, Greeks, Antiocheans, American saints, on and on that orient the Orthodox Christian in the right direction. A Russian bishop in Russia will find great value in the teachings of Father Seraphim Rose or St. Herman of Alaska or St. Theophan the Recluse or St. Sava of Serbia. We aren't restricted to obey only the commands of a central head Pope.
Remember the majority of the boldest claims to the papal supremacy are FROM POPES THEMSELVES! Focus on that! Also, look at how the Petrine primacy ESCALATES especially in the 8th-12th centuries as the popes took over more and more power! Look at how they behaved during the "Photian Schism!"
Look at how the Catholic Church evolved over time. Suddenly the creed gets altered, suddenly purgatory pops up, out of nowhere indulgences are cooked up, Eucharistic adoration appears, legalistic approaches to Christ come to the fore, the Fathers are dumped in favor of the Scholastics like Aquinas, the Atonement and focus is on Christ's death and suffering over His triumph and trampling death by death, and the whole act of salvation is broken into different types of sins--mortal and venial then we see indulgences sold for salvation, anti-popes, forgiveness no longer being simple but now broken into "satisfaction for temporal sins" and "eternal" ones. Yada yada.
Then look at the 1960's and Vatican II and the complete breakdown of their liturgy into a Protestant-like piety-free guitar-strumming monstrosity.
Heck, "papal infallibility" didn't even get debated until the 1800's!!!!!!! Don't you find that crazy in itself? The Catholics took 1,800 years to declare the pope is perfect in his teachings? huh?
St. John Chrysostom spent most of his life outside communion with Rome. And that man spoke and taught with a golden voice, and I can think of no higher source of perfect teaching and utter illumination than our Father Among the Saints!
Stuff to think about. The Church has endured 2,000 years. It has stumbled, gotten concussions, broken ribs, punctured lungs, but it heals and it comes out stronger like a re-forged sword. It works through the body of its clergy worldwide. It ain't easy, it ain't always pretty, but the Holy Spirit works not through a legal bunch of gears and spokes, but in a complex fashion.
You won't find a universal catechism in Orthodoxy and some constitution and uniform spreadsheet of theology. That isn't easy for the Westerner, especially Catholic, going Eastward, but once you accept the dicey, messy nature of what Christianity REALLY has always been, take that liturgy and the teachings of the Church and its mystics and saints into your heart, you'll grow in your holiness and faith like none other.
Hi Gurneyhalleck1,
I don't know enough about Church history to answer your questions, and this really wouldn't be the place to do it anyway, I guess. I don't want to get into any sort of heated argument. I'm just trying to understand some thigns.
Right now I'm just trying to understand how the Orthodox determine correct doctrine without a supreme, visible and infallible head (chief steward, vicar, pope, majordomo, vizier).
I believe ArmyMatt said that the Church as a whole is infallible, even if the majority of people in the Church are wrong. But I don't understand what that means.
How does one determine what "the Church as a whole" believes? Or in other words how does one determine which councils are valid (ecumenical)?
Also, I'm trying to understand the claim that the fathers did not believe the Church to be built on Peter (Rock), when I've seen quotes from numerous fathers, including Basil, Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nyssa, saying that the Church is built on Peter.
