Maybe a couple of clarifications on your part are in order - and I say this keeping in mind the "hurries state" of your post (as you phrased it).
thank you.
Corresponding to your four points above:
(1) In what sense have some Orthodox seen Peter as the "final say" or "head honcho"? I think there is ample biblical evidence to show that Peter rose to the top of the leadership circle within the Apostolic College, but this is a far cry from having de jure doctrinal authority. (Here I cite St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem who presided over the first council per Acts 15.) Also, as Frs. Hopko and Meyendorff have explained, not a single Apostle ever held charge over an episcopal see; neither did they serve as presbyters/bishops of the partical local churches which they founded.
You know, I honestly don't ahve time to look it all up again. However, the real point in saying this is to say that however high one elevates Peter among the apostles... even if they could show him to be a de jure leader among them has nothing at all to do with Bishop of Rome's status or place in the Church. The fallacy many Catholics make is they work really hard to prove what Matthew 16 means and talk about Peter and his awesomeness and the keys ad nauseum and then we fall into the trap of arguing about this when in reality it's nothing but a straw man (or a red herring???) and not on purpose (that is, the Catholics aren't saying... hmmm let;'s just confuse them by talking about Peter and not the Pope and that way deflect their attention away from the real issue) but it is really neither here nor there.
(2) I don't think anyone is saying that the roles of Peter and subsequent Roman popes are precisely the same.
I think Catholics do say this or at least functionally they see them as the same. I could be wrong but this would indeed be good news.
However, in a very real sense, the Pope is Peter according to Roman theology. This is why the Pope's chair is often referred to as the Chair of St. Peter.
Yes, this is Roman innovation but what I am saying is that for so long we have been debating this issue on their terms. We start with the unquestioned premise that the Pope is Peter. To them it is... so they start by arguing about Peter's role. But this premise makes no sense form the eastern point of view.
It's like arguing with someone about why potatoes are a better fruit than apples. It makes no sense to enter that discussion by trying to fight about why apples are better. The premise is flawed and so the discussion is useless.
(3) The papal-magisterial political system of authority as you describe it appears to be generally accurate as I understand things. Thanks for the education...
I would just point out here to round out your good remarks (and the for the overall benefit of those following this thread) that Rome possesses nothing remotely "official" in terms of being able to identify and distinguish between historical papal statements which were uttered ex Cathedra vs. those which were not.
I have to agree with this. I have heard vague commentaries on what makes a statement ex-cathedra but nothing precise enough where anyone could say "Hey, the pope just made an infallible statement!" There are no official lists even of what has been stated ex-cathedra thus far. There are one or two statements that are commoonly agreed upon (I think they both have to do with Mary) but then there are others that have been suggested to also fall under an ex-cathedra statement.
This makes defending the Pope easy and convenient: "Papal errors are those which haven't survived, those which the Church accepts and follows are infallible."
I agree, but in fairness it should be pointed out that we do something very similar with if a council is deemed Ecumenical and "binding" for lack of a better word.
My argument then comes not on the ambiquity of Papal authority and when it is/has been and can be laid down (not that it isn't problematic... but we aren't exactly the most organized Church ourselves lol) but on the fact that
de jure it ignores any conciliar method which is how the Church has always operated. It can be argued that generally the Popes work to make decisions conciliarly (like with Vaticans I and especially II) but this is by his very choice and granting. It is a priveledge that other bishops can have a say, not a right. This is actually the crux of almost ALL problems I have with the modern Papacy.
I actually have no problem with a de facto Papacy GRANTED to whatever See might be the most logical given the time. I'm not saying that is needed, but I am not saying that is wrong either... whatever the Church needs to function to Her best ability at the time. But assuming that a See has timeless priveledges which can never be lost or taken away by the Church as a whole is a a grave problem to me and not at all reflective of the Ancient Church. that's a personal opinion, but again, in doing so I am trying to key in on the REAL crux of the problem.
(4) Thumbs up!
Thanks... I jsut noticed I marked it a ssecond 3) lol
John
Anybody care to tackle that? Also I'm just now reading up on the filoque and........yeah! I don't understand it at all, other than the former councils saying that nothing should be added to the Creed, but the actual doctrinal dispute is byond me as of right now. But that's a whole other thread! Lol! O.K. Who's next?
