Again, neither of us are denying the Primacy of Saint Peter; what I’m denying is that the current Roman Papal claims are the manner in which the Almighty God intends to organize His Church. You can point to St. Peter until we’re purple, and unless we accept your claim that the contemporary Roman Papacy is that, we’re completely talking past each other.
Please recall that we are having parallel conversations. While you have admitted the primacy of Peter, I'm not sure Chiro has. And even your admission of even this much has been tenuous, since you were so sympathetic to Chiro's reduction of Peter's primacy to a mere typology.
As for your (and his) denial that the current papacy is somehow a violation of God's intention (whether the primacy of Peter is accepted or not) I would appreciate specifics. More than likely neither of you understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches on this point - and again, I'm not trying to be rude, but this is notoriously misunderstood by non-Catholics everywhere. It's like Archbishop Sheen said: there are millions of people who hate what they think the Catholic Church is, but far fewer who hate Her for what she actually is.
So in what ways do either of you think the current teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy differs from Christ's intention, and on what grounds and by what authority do you object? If you are going to object to the current teaching you are going to need to cite earlier teachings from the Tradition before I take you seriously. Your own impressions won't cut it; I won't stake my salvation on your impressions or my own.
It’s that the rejection of Papism is enshrined within the Lives of the Orthodox Saints.
Which saints, and in what ways? I'm tired of these generalities. What saints, during what time periods, said what against the papacy? What is the measure of their holiness or sanctity (and by what authority were they canonized?)? How do their alleged words on the papacy compare to the words of the saints prior to the schism? Are we forgetting the primacy of tradition when its convenient?
There’s literally zero point arguing about it. By this point, Papal spirituality has diverged so far from Orthodoxy, that they’re now entirely different religions. They share a thousand years of history, but they’re completely dissimilar in terms of focus and emphasis.
I think this kind of claim bespeaks ignorance of the Catholic saints.
It’s like, I’d say virtually the same thing to an Orthodox Christian if they start feeling the pull of Papism.
What one would say is irrelevant; what the Tradition teaches is what counts. There is an hermeneutic continuity from the days of our shared Tradition to the Catholic modern day, and there is an hermeneutic rupture from that same starting point to the Orthodox modern day. The early saints spoke of Peter's primacy with reference to his living successor. Modern Orthodox speak of his living successor without recognizing this primacy. That is a rupture - a schism.
What a skeevy thing to say, that Protestantism and “the East” are “united on this point” ! Trying to impugn the Church of the Holy Fathers and the Nine Ecumenical Councils with such a thing ... Protestants aren’t united about anything, and most couldn’t care less whether St. Peter was even a Bishop! And for what, to score points in a pointless argument? The very chutzpah of the thing.
I am merely pointing out the reality of this agreement, and the consequences of affirming what in this case is agreed upon. My reference to the diverse heresies was meant to apply only to the Protestants. The fact is that this agreement is factual; whether modern Protestants spend time thinking about the Pope or nor is not relevant; the point is that their heresy could not have gained momentum without men like Luther or Calvin first denying Rome - and my argument is that, while the East is only guilty of schism, not heresy, this schism is enabled by the same rejection that enabled the Protestant heresies, and so on those grounds I feel it is relevant to point this out.
And I am not here to score points; I am here to save souls. But this is not possible unless the Holy Spirit work through me, and those listening be receptive to grace. This has nothing to do with me, KOWA.
Chiro's reduction of Peter's primacy to a mere typology.
No, no, no. Not a reduction, except insofar as any token image/concept in literary form is a reduction! If Christ is an eternal part of the triune Godhead, then His depiction in written text is a type. The entire notion of a Jewish messiah is a type. Wisdom literature is what establishes types, and the Bible as revealed text wouldn't be much good if it didn't do that! It's not a condescension or a reduction, but a nod to the Hebraic form of the literature and its effectiveness at transmitting Christ's message to man.
Peter is great, but he is great BECAUSE his firstborn example of redemption in faith and true knowledge of Christ is so powerful that Christ could MAKE IT a type to lead all other sheep to salvation.
We can't hope to be like Christ substantively, who was NEVER IN NEED OF REDEMPTION, but we can hope to be like Peter who is made perfect in Christ, and inasmuch as we realize that hope, we become the Church.
We can't hope to be like Christ substantively, who was NEVER IN NEED OF REDEMPTION, but we can hope to be like Peter who is made perfect in Christ, and inasmuch as we realize that hope, we become the Church.
That is true, but it does not change the reality of the office Christ established for Peter, as affirmed and taught by Tradition Christ even gave him keys!
I’m really ready to move on from all of this. The Orthodox have never agreed with the kind of Papal Supremacy that developed in the Post-Schism West. That there exist Bishops with Apostolic Succession in the East who disagreed with the late-medieval Papal claims is evidence enough that its an innovation, as far as I’m concerned. Unlike Western pontiffs and their subject-scholars, I believe these Bishops were in a better position to rightly divide the Word of Truth, and the Holy Tradition they received, in matters pertaining to their own Church function.
The Latin claim depends on proving that these Eastern Bishops were decided schismatics, foisting schism upon their flock, by refusing to recognize the West’s bloated claims of political and spiritual supremacy. On the contrary, I see no reason to believe they had ever commemorated the Bishop of Rome in their Liturgy, simply because Rome never had anything to do with their founding. But the Latins attempted to enforce innovation of these Bishops, by sending delegations to compel them to change the Tradition they’ve inherited from their Holy Fathers, or suffer excommunication from the “Universal Pope”.
This actually happened in Church history. This is a thing the Orthodox have actually had to deal with. This isn’t some words on a page or a screen. This is a hostile foreign power attempting, first by force, and then by subterfuge and subversion, the religious observances of otherwise pious Christian Communities, which had never inherited these claims or observances as part of their Deposit of Faith.
And the reason they never inherited these innovations, is because they were never part of the Deposit in the first place.
My Bishop doesn’t go to your Bishop’s house, and suddenly start demanding that he accept his rites and observances. But that’s what the Roman’s have been doing, with their weird and foreign Papal Supremacy. And it really only became a problem like this post-schism.
I’m willing to move past this, because Orthodoxy has proven perfectly capable of resisting this innovation, for the most part, and it isn’t any sort of threat anymore. The Papacy has done more damage to its own credibility, by dint of its historical behavior, than any of us could ever do.
Please recall that we are having parallel conversations. While you have admitted the primacy of Peter, I'm not sure Chiro has. And even your admission of even this much has been tenuous, since you were so sympathetic to Chiro's reduction of Peter's primacy to a mere typology.
Hey, I’m fairly certain St. Peter actually was the Bishop of Rome at some point. The fact that Chiro’s writing on this topic was some of the finest I’ve seen, doesn’t mean I agree with every point. That said, it’s really nice seeing such a well-thought-out challenge to Papal Supremacy, coming from an “outside” source, an “objective” observer, so to speak. It would never even occur to me to have attempted such a task.
As for your (and his) denial that the current papacy is somehow a violation of God's intention (whether the primacy of Peter is accepted or not) I would appreciate specifics. More than likely neither of you understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches on this point - and again, I'm not trying to be rude, but this is notoriously misunderstood by non-Catholics everywhere. It's like Archbishop Sheen said: there are millions of people who hate what they think the Catholic Church is, but far fewer who hate Her for what she actually is.
So in what ways do either of you think the current teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy differs from Christ's intention, and on what grounds and by what authority do you object? If you are going to object to the current teaching you are going to need to cite earlier teachings from the Tradition before I take you seriously. Your own impressions won't cut it; I won't stake my salvation on your impressions or my own.
There has been more ink shed on this one subject than most others, and I simply don’t have the time to recast the whole thing, here. I’ll just copy-paste this extremely brief summary of the “Papal Problem”:
In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued “Unam Sanctam,” perhaps the most famous summary of papal claims made during the Middle Ages. Boniface not only demanded spiritual obedience to the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church, but claimed authority over all secular governments. Boniface wrote, “We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” In the centuries that followed, the Popes successfully defeated every effort to limit their growing power and emerged supreme, beyond the authority of any earthly power, including an ecumenical council. The expansion of papal authority reached its climax in 1870 at the First Vatican Council, which proclaimed the doctrine of papal infallibility and anathematized, that is, cast out of the Church, all who refused to recognize papal supremacy. -Fr. John Morris, Antiochian Priest, Oct. 2007
Apparently Pope Benedict XVI in a 2007 publication admitted the possibility that salvation exists outside the Papal Church, for some reason, but that the Orthodox are defective-at-best for failing to commemorate the Bishop of Rome. And this current “pope” (who is an obvious open heretic, and thus, no Pope at all) thinks we might as well all be Hindus for all the difference it makes.
The Orthodox reject the Papal claims on principal, and have been doing so for nearly a thousand years. There’s an expansive body of literature on the subject, wherein you can find all sorts of highlights, even involving Orthodox Saints, wouldn’t you know.
Which saints, and in what ways? I'm tired of these generalities. What saints, during what time periods, said what against the papacy? What is the measure of their holiness or sanctity (and by what authority were they canonized?)? How do their alleged words on the papacy compare to the words of the saints prior to the schism? Are we forgetting the primacy of tradition when its convenient?
I’m just not going to have the time or the desire to accept this invitation, to spell out the differences between the post-Schism Orthodox and Papal Saints. Their works exist all over the place online, and in many books, if you’re interested. Thanks but no thanks - especially not in this context of arguing over Papal Supremacy.
And I am not here to score points; I am here to save souls. But this is not possible unless the Holy Spirit work through me, and those listening be receptive to grace. This has nothing to do with me, KOWA.
I’m aware of that, and thinking the same thing.
(post is archived)