Arguments against the Supremacy of the Papacy/Petrine Primacy?

[buzuxi02]

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.

Huh? In the book of Acts its clear that James is the head of the Church.

In fact when the samaritans recieved the word of God the apostles in Jerusalem sent Peter and John to them to be chrismated. Anotherwords Peter was sent he did not do the sending, Peter was not in charge but took his orders from others(see Acts 8.14).

James was the president of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15.13-19) speaking as the leader and taking charge of the decree. That from Acts 21.18 we clearly see that James was the 'archbishop' of the Synod. That Acts records the church's history before any apostle ever visited Rome. That it is Christ himself who converts Paul to His Gospel for the specific task of being the first to preach in Rome (see Acts 23.11) That although Peter was the apostle to the jews, Paul was the first to preach Christ to the roman jews (and to the gentiles) because Peter had not yet arrived in Rome (Acts28.21-31)

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

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).



That all seems perfectly accurate and reasonable to me.



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

Let us Focus on the Thread, and this is PETRINE PRIMACY, NO PAPACY.

Let us provide another quote from Crysostom

And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.

Now, too many quotes I have provided from Chrysostom that are IRREFUTABLE, to show the PETRINE PRIMACY. That is the topic of this thread. and you haven't been able to explain properly further than your twisted explanations hard to understand. Poor attempts to hide the Sun with a finger.

 

[Macarius]

Let us Focus on the Thread, and this is PETRINE PRIMACY, NO PAPACY.

The subtext of the original post makes it clear that the OP was interested in arguments about papal supremacy. He, like you, wrongly equated the idea of St. Peter's pre-eminence among the apostles with a de-facto juridical authority for Rome among today's bishops.

So, yes, let us focus on the thread.

Once again, you show how poor you are at these discussions, as rather than address my actual points, you simply move on to the next quote from your quote mill and assume that, somehow, this will convince me. It won't.

Are you familiar with the "red herring" fallacy? I recommend you look it up, as the majority of your posts commit it.

Let us provide another quote from Crysostom

This quote says the same thing your prior quotes said. Once again, it highlights that St. Peter was leader among the Apostles, something that no Orthodox Christian would dispute. Quite nicely, this quote articulates what that leadership meant: that St. Peter acted as the mouthpiece / spokesman for the Apostles. That fits very, very well with an Orthodox understanding of the way the authority of a Patriarch functions.

So, again, I see nothing here that in any way threatens Orthodoxy or the Orthodox understanding of Church governance and authority. Once again, I see no link between these words concerning St. Peter and Rome - St. John Chrysostom's life (which you still have avoided directly addressing) stands as stark evidence that, no matter how many quotes of his you throw up, he still lived in such a way that indicates he would NOT have agreed with your understanding of Petrine Primacy (that is, as belonging exclusively to Rome and as implying limited infallibility as the standard of catholicity among the bishops, including the right to depose or appoint bishops at will).

Now, too many quotes I have provided from Chrysostom that are IRREFUTABLE, to show the PETRINE PRIMACY. That is the topic of this thread.

I've refuted every one of them directly. You just chose to ignore my refutations. Every time you put up a new red herring, I answer it. I point out that it is a red-herring, you continue not to respond to MY prior points, but I make a point of replying line by line to what you say.

So you can assert that these are irrefutable all you want - as I've explained multiple times, there is NOTHING in these quotes inconsistent with Orthodoxy. You keep quoting them ASSUMING that there's something inconsistent with Orthodoxy, but you aren't EXPLAINING where you see that inconsistency.

What should I be worried about, as an Orthodox Christian, in ANY of the quotes you've brought up from St. John? Where do we, as Orthodox Christians, teach ANYTHING different from what he has said?

So, in addition to being red-herrings (as, rather than reply to my rebuttals, you just change the subject by bringing up new quotes), these quotes are (in the way that you are using them) "straw men" arguments. You either need to explain how it is that these quotes disagree with Eastern Orthodox theology OR admit that you are attacking a position which doesn't really exist.

and you haven't been able to explain properly further than your twisted explanations hard to understand.

If there is anything you find confusing in my posts, simply quote the relevant line(s) and ask a question. I don't intend to be confusing. Far from it - I try to write in a thorough but straight-forward sort of way. I don't know what it is, specifically, that you find "twisted" in my posts other than the fact that I don't reach your conclusions.

Honestly, I can summarize my main two points in two very, very simple arguments:

1) You use St. John's words in support of papal primacy. St. John's LIFE indicates he did NOT believe in papal primacy in the same way that you do. IF St. John did not believe in papal primacy, THEN using his words in support of it demonstrates a misinterpretation of his words (at best).

2) All the quotes you have brought up so far have failed to connect St. Peter to Rome, nor to demonstrate that St. Peter's rank among the Apostles implied a Roman authority to depose and appoint bishops (or to overturn councils, or to act with limited infallibility, or any of the other components of how Petrine-Primacy gets applied in the RCC framework). Furthermore, and more importantly, every quote you've brought up has been perfectly consistent with Eastern Orthodox theology.

Poor attempts to hide the Sun with a finger.

Your use of straw men, red herrings, ad-hom attacks (that is, resorting to name calling rather than argument), and rhetorical jargon (that is, using an analogy rather than an argument) are ALL much more like attempting to hide the sun with a finger than any of my (actual) arguments.

Think this through - just stop and THINK about your approach here for a second. Do you REALLY (actually) think you are going to convince ANYONE by ducking and hiding from the counter-arguments being made against your points? Do you REALLY think you'll convince me by flinging some figurative language at me? Do you REALLY think that just one more proof-text quote (without any answer to my replies to your PRIOR quotes) is going to do the trick?

What is your goal here? What do you hope to achieve? How does your current approach make any strategic sense towards that goal?

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Philothei]

That is the topic of this thread. and you haven't been able to explain properly further than your twisted explanations hard to understand. Poor attempts to hide the Sun with a finger.

Ah...nah. These are quote mines not evidence. Please find us decisions of councils that verify papal supremacy and you will come empty handed... Nowhere in the decisions it says that papal supremacy is evident nor St. JC says anything like this. St JC says the Apostle was first NOT the Pope ... I see no mention that the Pope has to be primus...no where...

 

[Macarius]

Thread zombification... 33% complete... ;-)