An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholicism [Archpriest Fr. Josiah Trenham]

[Frankl]

I think very interesting for someone newbie like me, he answers many questions I had in mind

 

[AMM]

I watched this the other week. It was pretty informative, I thought. The question of “when did the schism really happen” is an interesting one.

 

[ArmyMatt]

thanks!

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Pretty much everything from Patristic Nectar is terrific. It’s helped me grow considerably to understand the Mind of the Church.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Fr. Josiah is a great blessing for the Church.

 

[narnia59]

I have a question on this. When he's talking about papal primacy, he says that Catholics believe that the pope is not only Peter's successor (which he seems to agree with) but also has the presence of Peter, maintaining his authority.

Do the Orthodox maintain that Peter had primacy but his successors do not? Or that Peter did not have primacy?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have a question on this. When he's talking about papal primacy, he says that Catholics believe that the pope is not only Peter's successor (which he seems to agree with) but also has the presence of Peter, maintaining his authority.

Do the Orthodox maintain that Peter had primacy but his successors do not? Or that Peter did not have primacy?

St Peter has primacy, just not in the way that Rome says he does.

 

[narnia59]

St Peter has primacy, just not in the way that Rome says he does.

In what way did Peter have primacy in the Orthodox view?

 

[ArmyMatt]

In what way did Peter have primacy in the Orthodox view?

of honor, not authority over his brothers. and all bishops who rightly confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God are his successors.

 

[narnia59]

of honor, not authority over his brothers. and all bishops who rightly confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God are his successors.

I could be wrong but I don't think that agrees with the priest in the video. He seems to indicate that the Catholic view of the Pope aligns with Peter's authority, but that authority was not passed on to his successors.

He says "The concept of universal primacy, the thought that has developed in the west, especially in Rome that the bishop of Rome is not just Peter's successor but Peter's personal presence on the earth."

Later he says "fundamental Catholic doctrine that the Pope was no longer just the successor of Peter but his personal presence, maintaining his authority."

I interpret that to mean he thinks that Peter on earth had universal primacy and the Catholics are just mistaken that authority was passed to his successors.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I could be wrong but I don't think that agrees with the priest in the video. He seems to indicate that the Catholic view of the Pope aligns with Peter's authority, but that authority was not passed on to his successors.

He says "The concept of universal primacy, the thought that has developed in the west, especially in Rome that the bishop of Rome is not just Peter's successor but Peter's personal presence on the earth."

Later he says "fundamental Catholic doctrine that the Pope was no longer just the successor of Peter but his personal presence, maintaining his authority."

I interpret that to mean he thinks that Peter on earth had universal primacy and the Catholics are just mistaken that authority was passed to his successors.

well, again, he is right that we agree with Petrine primacy. the question is what does that mean?

and nothing I said contradicts Fr Josiah, especially since I have heard him say what I just said.

 

[Hermit76]

Peter as an Apostle would hold a unique authority that would not have been passed on. I think that the point Fr. Josiah is making separates the person of the Apostle from the office of the Bishop of Rome. Rome seems to unite the two beyond reason and reality.

Or I may be wrong... Fr. Matt?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Peter as an Apostle would hold a unique authority that would not have been passed on. I think that the point Fr. Josiah is making separates the person of the Apostle from the office of the Bishop of Rome. Rome seems to unite the two beyond reason and reality.

Or I may be wrong... Fr. Matt?

that's one of Rome's many errors concerning the Pope.

 

[narnia59]

Peter as an Apostle would hold a unique authority that would not have been passed on. I think that the point Fr. Josiah is making separates the person of the Apostle from the office of the Bishop of Rome. Rome seems to unite the two beyond reason and reality.

Or I may be wrong... Fr. Matt?

The above, bolded, is what I think I understood from the video. He seems to believe that Peter held a unique authority among the apostles, but that unique authority is not passed to his successors.

If that is the case, how would the Orthodox describe the unique authority that Peter had among the apostles that they believe would not be passed on?

 

[Hermit76]

The above, bolded, is what I think I understood from the video. He seems to believe that Peter held a unique authority among the apostles, but that unique authority is not passed to his successors.

If that is the case, how would the Orthodox describe the unique authority that Peter had among the apostles that they believe would not be passed on?

I didn't say that Peter had a unique authority among the Apostles. I said as an Apostle he had a unique authority. Paul's correction of Peter was very revealing. The Apostles did not hold infallibility "ex cathedra" or otherwise. First among equals is perhaps a mystery... but we're ok with that.

 

[narnia59]

I didn't say that Peter had a unique authority among the Apostles. I said as an Apostle he had a unique authority. Paul's correction of Peter was very revealing. The Apostles did not hold infallibility "ex cathedra" or otherwise. First among equals is perhaps a mystery... but we're ok with that.

Okay, so if that's the case why is there a difference between the authority Peter held and the authority his successors hold?

And have you ever read John Chrysostom's account of Peter and Paul and the "correction"?

 

[Hermit76]

Okay, so if that's the case why is there a difference between the authority Peter held and the authority his successors hold?

And have you ever read John Chrysostom's account of Peter and Paul and the "correction"?

Peter walked with Jesus and was chosen as a disciple. So the same as every other successor of every other Apostle-Bishop

No

 

[narnia59]

Peter walked with Jesus and was chosen as a disciple. So the same as every other successor of every other Apostle-Bishop

No

If there is no difference between the role of Peter and the role of his successors in the Orthodox view, then what Fr. Josiah is saying makes no sense. He says the Catholics are wrong about the Pope because we develop a fundamental Catholic doctrine that the Pope was no longer just the successor of Peter but his personal presence, maintaining his authority.

This is interesting to me because I have never been able to reconcile the Orthodox view of the Pope with the writings of St. John Chrysostom about Peter. But if the Orthodox contend that Peter did have the kind of authority that Chrysostom describes but that authority does not persist in his successors, then that makes more sense.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Copypasta from a previous post:

I saw/listened to a homily this morning in which the subject matter led to the part in the Gospel where Lord asks the disciples who they say He is, which of course St. Peter comes to proclaim that He is the Lord, the Son of God, and we know the response from Lord: "You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church."

Well, the priest says to not get stuck in the world of literalism, and this goes for the Antiochians, too because they often retort to the Roman Catholics with "Well, Ss Peter and Paul were both our bishops first! " Both the Romans and Antiochians are reading the Lord literally, when throughout the whole Gospel, the disciples also took the Lord literally, and kept getting rebuked for it because they (the disciples) couldn't grasp the Lord's spiritual meaning.

He (the priest giving the homily) went on to say that the "Rock" which the Lord is talking about is St. Peter's answer to the Lord's question: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." <--- That statement is the Rock which the Lord builds His Church on. Not literally Peter, the person. (Because if you remember, each disciple gave an answer to His question, but Peter's was the most accurate answer.) Also, St Peter wasn't called "Peter" until he gave his answer to the Lord's question, so it's easy to conclude that he was called "Peter" because of his statement of faith, and not because of his personhood. We come to read later on that Peter is anything BUT a Rock, because he like the rest of us waivered in the face of danger. His statement of faith is the Rock. It's plausible that if it was St. Andrew who gave the correct answer, then St. Andrew would be the one called "Peter" and not Simon. The focus is on the wrong Person.

If the Lord were building His Church on Peter, the person, well He goes on to call Peter, the person, "Satan" a few verses later for trying to prevent the Logos from doing God's Will.

Logically, if we were to determine His Words literally, He built His Church on Peter, the person, but then later called this person "Satan," so do we really want to claim He built a Church on Satan?

 

[prodromos]

This is interesting to me because I have never been able to reconcile the Orthodox view of the Pope with the writings of St. John Chrysostom about Peter.

St John Chrysostom's writings about Peter, are about Peter. I have never been able to fathom how Catholics somehow conflate them with the bishop of Rome, especially when St John spent the majority of his life as an ordained minister, out of communion with Rome.