Is this true?

[Reader Nilus]

Rome was first among equals because it was the See of the capital city. When Rome fell away from the faith, The See of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarch became first among equals for the same reason, that See was the See of the capital city. It is sort of like the Russian Church it started out centered in Kiev but now is in Moscow.
Blessed Augustine in a sermon:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the final days of His earthly life, in the days of His mission to the race of man, chose from among the disciples His twelve Apostles for preaching the Word of God. Among them, the Apostle Peter for his fiery ardour was vouchsafed to occupy the first place (Mt 10:2) and to be as it were the representative person for all the Church. And therefore it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: "And I give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if thou bindest upon the earth, it will be bound in the Heavens: and if thou loosenest upon the earth, it will be loosened in the Heavens (Mt 16; 19). Wherefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these "keys" and the right "to bind and loosen." And that actually it was the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to also all His Apostles: "Receive ye the Holy Spirit" -- and further after this: "Whoseso sins ye remit, are remitted them: and whoseso sins ye retain, are retained" (Jn 20:22-23); or: "with what ye bind upon the earth, will be bound in Heaven: and with what ye loosen upon the earth, will be loosened in the Heavens" (Mt 18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational corner-stone -- Jesus Christ Himself (Eph 2:20) doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding, in order not to remain forever in this condition. Wherefore "by the passions of his own sins -- says Wisdom -- is each ensnared" (Prov 5:22); and except for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.
A good discussion is Thou Art Peter by Fr John Maxwell
Jeff the Finn

 

[Maximus]

I am not really that interested in carrying on a protracted debate over the primacy of Peter and the bishops of Rome. But I do not think that the Roman bishops were regarded as "first among equals" simply because Rome was the capital city. I think it is because Rome was the scene of the martyrdom of saints Peter and Paul and because St. Peter was Rome's first bishop. That is what St. Irenaeus seems to be saying here:

" Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do but put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops" (Against the Heresies; Book III, Chap. III).

Note also in the passage from St. Augustine quoted in the last post that St. Augustine does not deny St. Peter the primacy; he merely indicates that the other Apostles shared in the authority granted to the Church.

Here is another quote from St. Augustine that seems to make that clear:

"For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on account of the primacy which he bore among the Disciples; as it is written, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' and other passages of the like" (Homilies on the Psalms Psalm LXXVII).

Here also is what the bishops assembled at Chalcedon proclaimed after the famous Tome of Pope St. Leo the Great was read to them:

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

 

[Maximus]

Here also is the record of how the Council of Chalcedon opened, with the speech of the papal legate:

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave. (1)

The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said: Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.


Search the record of the proceedings at Chalcedon. You will not find a single bishop objecting to what Paschasinus said. Not one of them stood up and said, "Hey, wait a minute! Leo is not 'head of all the churches'! He's just 'the first among equals,' and that's only because Rome used to be the capital city!"

Kind of makes you stop and think, doesn't it?

 

[Reader Nilus]

Nor would anyone object to that language being used by Orthodox about His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew. The pope of Rome had the same respect as the current EP in the undivided Church, and the same position, as first among equals.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Maximus]

Nor would anyone object to that language being used by Orthodox about His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew. The pope of Rome had the same respect as the current EP in the undivided Church, and the same position, as first among equals.
Jeff the Finn

Well, sort of.

The Patriarch of Constantinople cannot be regarded as the successor of St. Peter, nor, as far as I know, has anyone ever thus regarded him.

No one would ever say, "Peter has spoken thus through Bartholomew."

I think it is plain in Church history and the Fathers that the popes had more authority than the EP now holds among the Orthodox bishops.

It is possible to get a correct picture of the papacy without becoming Roman Catholic.

 

[CopticOrthodox]

I believe that twice disputes arose between the Bishop of Rome and the North Aferican Churches over whether the Baptism of heretics should be accepted. The bishop of Rome did not think that those Baptised by heretics should be Baptised when coming into Orthodoxy. They turned to Alexandria for arbitration, and Rome was refuted. The entire Church East & West came to agree and did not accept the baptism of heretics. Of course today Rome does accept it again, but even so this does not seem to me like an infallible vicar of Christ defining doctrine guarded by the Holy Spirit. Rome was not really very theologically active in the earliest times, and often turned to other sees, often Alexandria for explanation. This isn't to say that Alexandria is/was better than Rome, it's just that the theological school floruished there and became a very early center of Christian learning.

I don't think Jeffthefinn meant the part about the successor of St. Peter appying to the EP, just that kind of language of respect as first in honour.

Rome's primacy in the Early Church was certainly not one of absolute authority, it was one of honour.

 

[Photini]

Here is another interesting article. Please read and let me know what you all think.

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/guettee06.html

 

[Juice]

Dear Maximus....

I forward you to the following link:

http://www.antiochian.org/Patriarchate/patriarchs.htm

It clearly shows that the Church of Antioch also holds Peter to be their frist Bishop and follow their apostolic succession from him too.

Second, when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, we know for fact, that Peter had yet to reach Rome. And we also know that Paul came to Rome before Peter.

I am not trying to argue against Peter not being the first Bishop of Rome, but that is not to say that there were not Christians already int Rome before Peter came. It is to these early Christian Romans that Paul was writing to.

 

[Maximus]

Dear Maximus....

I forward you to the following link:

http://www.antiochian.org/Patriarchate/patriarchs.htm

It clearly shows that the Church of Antioch also holds Peter to be their frist Bishop and follow their apostolic succession from him too.

Second, when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, we know for fact, that Peter had yet to reach Rome. And we also know that Paul came to Rome before Peter.

I am not trying to argue against Peter not being the first Bishop of Rome, but that is not to say that there were not Christians already int Rome before Peter came. It is to these early Christian Romans that Paul was writing to.

I don't deny that the bishops of Antioch trace their succession from St. Peter. The distinction is that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome at his death and passed his office and authority to St. Linus there rather than at Antioch.

It does not really matter who got to Rome first. What matters is that Christ gave the primacy among the Apostles to St. Peter. Once St. Peter got there, he was in charge, regardless of who arrived there before he did.

 

[Maximus]

I believe that twice disputes arose between the Bishop of Rome and the North Aferican Churches over whether the Baptism of heretics should be accepted. The bishop of Rome did not think that those Baptised by heretics should be Baptised when coming into Orthodoxy. They turned to Alexandria for arbitration, and Rome was refuted. The entire Church East & West came to agree and did not accept the baptism of heretics. Of course today Rome does accept it again, but even so this does not seem to me like an infallible vicar of Christ defining doctrine guarded by the Holy Spirit. Rome was not really very theologically active in the earliest times, and often turned to other sees, often Alexandria for explanation. This isn't to say that Alexandria is/was better than Rome, it's just that the theological school floruished there and became a very early center of Christian learning.

I don't think Jeffthefinn meant the part about the successor of St. Peter appying to the EP, just that kind of language of respect as first in honour.

Rome's primacy in the Early Church was certainly not one of absolute authority, it was one of honour.

I don't think your characterization of the dispute between Pope Stephen and St. Cyprian of Carthage is exactly accurate. The dispute was actually ended by the death of Stephen in 256 and the martyrdom of Cyprian two years later in 258.

Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria brokered peace between Rome and Carthage but actually upheld Stephen's position.

It is interesting, too, that St. Cyprian never disputed the fact that St. Peter held the primacy among the Apostles and that Pope Stephen was his successor. His On the Unity of the Catholic Church makes some of the strongest statements for the primacy of St. Peter.

What Cyprian disputed about was whether or not heretics should be rebaptized (he thought they should). He never tried to say that St. Peter was not the first among the Apostles or that Stephen was not his successor.

I agree that the Pope did not hold an "absolute" authority like that wielded by medieval popes. Where I disagree is with the statement that his authority was merely honorific. I think it was more than that. It was a kind of presidency, an executive office, among the College of Bishops. It was a real authority to hear appeals and resolve disputes, but it was subject to that of the whole college of bishops assembled in an ecumenical council.

 

[Photini]

So, if Rome were to repent and reunite with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, what do you think the authority of the Pope would be?

 

[Maximus]

So, if Rome were to repent and reunite with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, what do you think the authority of the Pope would be?

Wow! What a question!

I am not even close to finishing my study of the papacy yet. I think the proper role of the Pope is as a kind of president among the College of Bishops, but, honestly, I am not yet sure exactly what that would entail. I have a lot still to learn.

 

[Reader Nilus]

It would be something like the EP.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Maximus]

It would be something like the EP.
Jeff the Finn

In other words, no real authority outside his own patriarchate.

 

[Photini]

In other words, no real authority outside his own patriarchate.

That's what I was thinking. To be honest, I hadn't really thought about it until I asked the question above. It's quite a "chunk to chew on." Surely the Pope wouldn't expect to be the Patriarch over all the churches, wanting to absorb Holy Orthodoxy as just another rite. I pray for our Patriarchs, for their wisdom and discernment, just as those Orthodox pillars in the days of old who stood up for the Faith.

 

[Maximus]

That's what I was thinking. To be honest, I hadn't really thought about it until I asked the question above. It's quite a "chunk to chew on." Surely the Pope wouldn't expect to be the Patriarch over all the churches, wanting to absorb Holy Orthodoxy as just another rite. I pray for our Patriarchs, for their wisdom and discernment, just as those Orthodox pillars in the days of old who stood up for the Faith.

Well, I think St. Peter and the other bishops of Rome had more authority within the Church than the current EP does now. I do not think it was the absolute authority that modern RCism vests in the Pope, but it wasn't the merely honorific impotence that those at the other extreme argue for either.

The latter argument has been adapted from Protestantism. I don't think serious Orthodox scholars buy it.

How can anyone study Church history with an open mind and come away thinking that the early popes held no more than honorific authority?

How can any Orthodox Christian argue that St. Peter was not the chief of the Apostles?

Sometimes I think there are those of us who go too far in the effort to distance themselves from Roman Catholicism.

Lest anyone accuse me of going too far the other way, let me say again that I do not hold the modern RC view of the papacy.

What I believe in this connection is what I gather from the evidence of Scripture, the Fathers, and Church history.

 

[isshinwhat]

believe that twice disputes arose between the Bishop of Rome and the North Aferican Churches over whether the Baptism of heretics should be accepted. The bishop of Rome did not think that those Baptised by heretics should be Baptised when coming into Orthodoxy. They turned to Alexandria for arbitration, and Rome was refuted. The entire Church East & West came to agree and did not accept the baptism of heretics.

I apologize if this seems like an intrusion, but I feel I have to interject for the sake of historical accuracy.

Eusebius of Caesarea
Church History
Book VII

CHAPTER 3
Cyprian, and the Bishops with him, first taught that it was necessary to purify by Baptism those converted from HeresyFirst of all, Cyprian, pastor of the parish of Carthage, maintained that they should not be received except they had been purified from their error by baptism. But Stephen considering it unnecessary to add any innovation contrary to the tradition which had been held from the beginning, was very indignant at this.

It was not Pope St. Stephen who wrote to St. Dionysius, but St. Dionysius who wrote to St. Stephen. Eusebius writes that Dionysius was concerned because "...the ancient custom prevailed in regard to such, that they should receive only the laying on of hands with prayers," but some contraversy had arisen, whereas heretics were being rebaptized, which was an unnecessary innovation that went against Tradition. Under St. Sixtus, the decision of St. Stephen bore fruit, and the Bishops of the Church were "of one mind, and rejoice[d] greatly in the peace which [had] come beyond expectation."

Rome was not really very theologically active in the earliest times, and often turned to other sees, often Alexandria for explanation. This isn't to say that Alexandria is/was better than Rome, it's just that the theological school floruished there and became a very early center of Christian learning.

St. Dionysius wrote that the Bishop of Rome, St. Stephen, had written letters and given aid to most of the Eastern Bishoprics.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[Reader Nilus]

Did the Pope of Rome have authority over other dioceses? I do not think the record shows that, it other dioceses asked Rome something Rome replied, but he could not force the issue. So his authority was confined to the Diocese of Rome. The EP assumed the first among equals after Rome left the faith.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Stormy]

The EP assumed the first among equals after Rome left the faith.
Jeff the Finn

Excuse me?

When did Rome leave the Faith?

 

[isshinwhat]

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

I honestly don't know how much things have developed, Jeff, but I do believe the kernels were there from the beginning. I read things like this, and it makes me think, "yes, the Bishop of Rome held juridicial rights over the entire Church" in practice, and it was understood as having such rights by the other Patriarchs. I mean, "it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority," is a pretty straight-forward statement. I do not believe the role of the Papacy has been felt out completely by either side, and I, for one, cannot wait to see what the Holy Spirit works out for us. What a magnificent day that will be!

Now that I have answered your question, I will back out of this conversation, as I feel like a cousin in an immediate family discussion.

God Bless you all, and may the Lord guide us to reunion,




Neal