Hello, all.
I'm currently an agnostic theist. For the past several years, I have been researching about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and I've come to conclusion that the Orthodox Church is probably the true church. Since the main divide between the two is the existence of the papacy, I've read much from apologists on both "sides" of the debate and feel that the Orthodox position is historic, consistent, and logical.
Convince me I'm wrong!
I want this to be an informal dialogue/debate, which is why I avoided the "Formal Debate" part of the forum.
First, let me specify some of what the Orthodox Church believes regarding St. Peter and Rome:
1.) Peter was the leader of the Apostles.
2.) The Church of Rome is an apostolic see. The Roman bishop is a successor of St. Peter.
3.) Rome held a primacy of honor, but this depended on Rome's maintaining the correct faith and was lost once Rome fell into heresy. The Patriarch of Constantinople hold the primacy of honor that Rome used to hold.
4.) In the early church, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were considered the "three sees of St. Peter." All three were considered "one see of Peter," and all three shared in the "primacy of Peter."
5.) Rome did not have "universal jurisdiction" over the entire Church.
6.) Infallibility comes the "college of bishops," to use a Catholic term. In other words, the Bishop of Rome was never seen as being infallible "on his own" or "without a council." For the Orthodox, the supreme, ultimate, infallible authority in the Church is the Ecumenical Council.
I want Catholics to convince me that the Catholic view of the papacy is correct! You have to prove that the Pope/Roman Church was:
(a) regarded in the first millennium as a universally recognized supreme head of the church.
(b) above being judged by the church for the orthodoxy of its doctrine.
(c) above council and that a council depended on his authority.
(d) that his authority was seen as infallible/the "final say"/etc.
I want this to be a free discussion, so the only rules I want us to follow are the following:
1.) Don't present a long list of random quotes. If you do present a quote, provide a link to the text it comes from and tell me why it supports your position. Try to offer some context for the quote and the text it comes from.
2.) Don't present more than three quotes per post.
3.) Wait until someone else posts before posting more quotes.
4.) Don't give me quotes from church fathers showing that Peter was special among the apostles, or that Rome is an "apostolic see" or a "see of Peter." The Orthodox Church already believes this.
________________________________________________________
Here are three quotes I'll present to start this off:
1.) In the sixth century, Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria. The letter, which can be read here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm , is basically a response to a letter sent by Eulogius shortly after having assumed the bishopric of Alexandria. Gregory the Great clearly suggests that Rome, Antioch and Alexandria are all the "one See of Peter" and that their three bishops, together, preside in the See of Peter.
"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself."
2.) The 85 so-called "Apostolic Canons" http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm were accepted by the Council of Trullo in 692. Trullo was generally rejected by the western churches, though Pope Hadrian 1 (700-795) wrote "favorably of its canons," according to Wikipedia. Only the first 50 of the Apostolic Canons were accepted for a time in the west, including Canon 34, which states:
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
So, clearly, the only way to maintain unity in the Church, according to the Canons, is when the Archbishops/Patriarchs/Metropolitans acts with the consent of the bishops under them.
This still happens in the Orthodox Church. It doesn't happen in the Catholic Church anymore.
3.) The context of my last quote is a bit lengthy, but I'll try to keep it simple.
In the fifth century, three bishops who had been accused of Nestorianism--Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas--wrote a theological treatise called the "Three Chapters." These three bishops were later found to be innocent of the accusations at the Council of Chalcedon. However, in 543, Emperor Justinian hoped to crush the still popular heresy by publicly condemning the Three Chapters in an attempt to bring peace to the Church.
The Emperor sent his condemnation to the five main Sees of the Church, and all but Rome's Pope Vigilius agreed to sign it. The Emperor went into a rage, and on November 22, 545, he sent an escort of troops to kidnap the Roman Pope, then had him locked up under house arrest in Constantinople for several years. In 548, Vigilius caved in and reversed his position, issuing the document Judicatum, formally anathematizing the Three Chapters.
Some western saw this decree as a betrayal of the Council of Chalcedon. The western churches completely deserted Vigilius, including his own clergy in Rome, and a council was held in Africa (convened by Reparatus of Carthage) that unanimously excommunicated the Pope for having contradicted the teachings of an ecumenical council, which was seen as the highest form of authority in the Church and by which all, even a Roman Pope, could be judged.
Vigilius later changed his mind, this time caving in to the North African council and withdrew Judicatum, though he secretly assured the Emperor in a letter that he still stood behind Judicatum. Vigilius then wrote another letter to the Emperor, changing his mind AGAIN and refusing to give in to the Emperor's will. The Emperor, frustrated with Vigilius' flip-flopping, convened a council in Constantinople on May 4th, 553. (The Fifth Ecumenical Council, known as Constantinople II.) During this council, Vigilius wrote Constitutum, in which he did ANOTHER flip-flop on the Three Chapters, now deciding to condemn them. (While a Catholic might argue that Judicatum was written under duress and therefore not techincally valid, the same can't be said for Constitutum.) In Constitutum, the Roman Pope condemns some of the writings of the three bishops, but not the bishops themselves.
The council, however, took it step further, condemning and anathematizing the Three Chapters, its authors, and all those who support them. The council then proceeded to anathematize Pope Vigilius and ordered his name struck from the Diptychs of the Church. (The Diptychs were lists showing who's in communion with whom.)
Six months later, Vigilius caved in AGAIN, issuing a second Constitutum (dated February 24, 554), in which he basically condemns the Three Chapters and blames Satan for misleading him.
In response, this council--which, if you'll recall, is the Fifth Ecumenical Council--in Session VII http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp, agrees to accept Pope Vigilius' second Constitutum and declares to him:
"If your blessedness (Pope Vigilius) is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."
So, in other words, the council only accepts Pope Vigilius as maintaining the primacy of honor (first among equals) if, and ONLY if, he maintains the correct faith as held by the universal Church
This is exactly what the Orthodox Church today believes. A bishop, even the bishop of an apostolic see, is a beacon of orthodox faith only as long as he maintains the correct faith.
I'm currently an agnostic theist. For the past several years, I have been researching about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and I've come to conclusion that the Orthodox Church is probably the true church. Since the main divide between the two is the existence of the papacy, I've read much from apologists on both "sides" of the debate and feel that the Orthodox position is historic, consistent, and logical.
Convince me I'm wrong!
I want this to be an informal dialogue/debate, which is why I avoided the "Formal Debate" part of the forum.
First, let me specify some of what the Orthodox Church believes regarding St. Peter and Rome:
1.) Peter was the leader of the Apostles.
2.) The Church of Rome is an apostolic see. The Roman bishop is a successor of St. Peter.
3.) Rome held a primacy of honor, but this depended on Rome's maintaining the correct faith and was lost once Rome fell into heresy. The Patriarch of Constantinople hold the primacy of honor that Rome used to hold.
4.) In the early church, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were considered the "three sees of St. Peter." All three were considered "one see of Peter," and all three shared in the "primacy of Peter."
5.) Rome did not have "universal jurisdiction" over the entire Church.
6.) Infallibility comes the "college of bishops," to use a Catholic term. In other words, the Bishop of Rome was never seen as being infallible "on his own" or "without a council." For the Orthodox, the supreme, ultimate, infallible authority in the Church is the Ecumenical Council.
I want Catholics to convince me that the Catholic view of the papacy is correct! You have to prove that the Pope/Roman Church was:
(a) regarded in the first millennium as a universally recognized supreme head of the church.
(b) above being judged by the church for the orthodoxy of its doctrine.
(c) above council and that a council depended on his authority.
(d) that his authority was seen as infallible/the "final say"/etc.
I want this to be a free discussion, so the only rules I want us to follow are the following:
1.) Don't present a long list of random quotes. If you do present a quote, provide a link to the text it comes from and tell me why it supports your position. Try to offer some context for the quote and the text it comes from.
2.) Don't present more than three quotes per post.
3.) Wait until someone else posts before posting more quotes.
4.) Don't give me quotes from church fathers showing that Peter was special among the apostles, or that Rome is an "apostolic see" or a "see of Peter." The Orthodox Church already believes this.
________________________________________________________
Here are three quotes I'll present to start this off:
1.) In the sixth century, Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria. The letter, which can be read here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm , is basically a response to a letter sent by Eulogius shortly after having assumed the bishopric of Alexandria. Gregory the Great clearly suggests that Rome, Antioch and Alexandria are all the "one See of Peter" and that their three bishops, together, preside in the See of Peter.
"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself."
2.) The 85 so-called "Apostolic Canons" http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm were accepted by the Council of Trullo in 692. Trullo was generally rejected by the western churches, though Pope Hadrian 1 (700-795) wrote "favorably of its canons," according to Wikipedia. Only the first 50 of the Apostolic Canons were accepted for a time in the west, including Canon 34, which states:
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
So, clearly, the only way to maintain unity in the Church, according to the Canons, is when the Archbishops/Patriarchs/Metropolitans acts with the consent of the bishops under them.
This still happens in the Orthodox Church. It doesn't happen in the Catholic Church anymore.
3.) The context of my last quote is a bit lengthy, but I'll try to keep it simple.
In the fifth century, three bishops who had been accused of Nestorianism--Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas--wrote a theological treatise called the "Three Chapters." These three bishops were later found to be innocent of the accusations at the Council of Chalcedon. However, in 543, Emperor Justinian hoped to crush the still popular heresy by publicly condemning the Three Chapters in an attempt to bring peace to the Church.
The Emperor sent his condemnation to the five main Sees of the Church, and all but Rome's Pope Vigilius agreed to sign it. The Emperor went into a rage, and on November 22, 545, he sent an escort of troops to kidnap the Roman Pope, then had him locked up under house arrest in Constantinople for several years. In 548, Vigilius caved in and reversed his position, issuing the document Judicatum, formally anathematizing the Three Chapters.
Some western saw this decree as a betrayal of the Council of Chalcedon. The western churches completely deserted Vigilius, including his own clergy in Rome, and a council was held in Africa (convened by Reparatus of Carthage) that unanimously excommunicated the Pope for having contradicted the teachings of an ecumenical council, which was seen as the highest form of authority in the Church and by which all, even a Roman Pope, could be judged.
Vigilius later changed his mind, this time caving in to the North African council and withdrew Judicatum, though he secretly assured the Emperor in a letter that he still stood behind Judicatum. Vigilius then wrote another letter to the Emperor, changing his mind AGAIN and refusing to give in to the Emperor's will. The Emperor, frustrated with Vigilius' flip-flopping, convened a council in Constantinople on May 4th, 553. (The Fifth Ecumenical Council, known as Constantinople II.) During this council, Vigilius wrote Constitutum, in which he did ANOTHER flip-flop on the Three Chapters, now deciding to condemn them. (While a Catholic might argue that Judicatum was written under duress and therefore not techincally valid, the same can't be said for Constitutum.) In Constitutum, the Roman Pope condemns some of the writings of the three bishops, but not the bishops themselves.
The council, however, took it step further, condemning and anathematizing the Three Chapters, its authors, and all those who support them. The council then proceeded to anathematize Pope Vigilius and ordered his name struck from the Diptychs of the Church. (The Diptychs were lists showing who's in communion with whom.)
Six months later, Vigilius caved in AGAIN, issuing a second Constitutum (dated February 24, 554), in which he basically condemns the Three Chapters and blames Satan for misleading him.
In response, this council--which, if you'll recall, is the Fifth Ecumenical Council--in Session VII http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp, agrees to accept Pope Vigilius' second Constitutum and declares to him:
"If your blessedness (Pope Vigilius) is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."
So, in other words, the council only accepts Pope Vigilius as maintaining the primacy of honor (first among equals) if, and ONLY if, he maintains the correct faith as held by the universal Church
This is exactly what the Orthodox Church today believes. A bishop, even the bishop of an apostolic see, is a beacon of orthodox faith only as long as he maintains the correct faith.