The Pope: A Discussion of the Roman Primacy

The understanding of the role of the Pope in the Church is a major bone of contention, not only between the Eastern and Western Churches, but also between the various Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI said that the issues surrounding the papacy represented "undoubtedly the greatest obstacle in the path of ecumenism." The debate revolves around Scripture, Patristics, and theology throughout the ages.  This issue seems to come up time and again on All Empires and often diverts threads from their original topics. I propose, therefore, that any further discussion of the Papacy take place in this thread. This is a contentious issue, and thus I will propose a set of guidelines which I believe will help the keep the discussion civil and intelligent. Here are the guidelines with brief explanations below them:

1) Introduce yourself.

Please say hello and, in the interest of intellectual honesty, state your religious affiliation.

2) Post something substantive or don't post at all.

One liners profit nobody. If you feel something is wrong, you must clearly and intelligently state why.

3) Be original.

Please do not simply copy and paste source material. At least make the effort to connect it to a point you are trying to make. Explain how material from other websites, books, ancient documents, Scripture, etc. fits into the discussion.

4) Research, then write.

This discussion could provide us all with an opportunity to engage and learn from the writings of the Church Fathers, the Scriptures, etc.; there is an enormous amount of scholarship on this topic. Unfortunately there is also a wealth of polemical material. This thread, if we decide to behave like children, could degenerate into a flame war, which brings me to the most important point...

5) Be respectful.

If we respect others we stand to learn more than if we view them with haughty disdain. Pride is almost certainly a sin of which we have all been guilty--I know I, myself, have. Insults, trolling, etc. would be both unprofitable and un-Christian.

So here we go. I am Akolouthos. I am an Orthodox Christian. I have high hopes for this thread, and look forward to discussing this issue with all of you.

-Akolouthos

P.S. If anyone notices discussion of this topic in other threads, please refer/link the parties involved to this one.

Edited by Akolouthos - 03-Aug-2007 at 23:19

Originally posted by The Jackal God secondly, i don't understand the hesitancy of affirming papal infallibility while asserting the infallibility of councils. as regards papal infallibility, scripturally, was it just honor?

Well, when Vatican I defined the doctrine there was a fair amount of hesitancy. It is quite the touchy subject, and has become an insurmountable impediment to union; so long as the concept of papal infallibility exists, no matter how narrowly it is defined and redefined, the Orthodox will be unable to recognize the Roman bishop.

We accept the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils because they are the vehicles through which the Holy Spirit has directed the Church--guiding it into all truth according to the promise of Christ--since its inception (See John 16 and the Council of Jerusalem). We cannot accept the infallibility of any individual. Even Roman theologians admit that the idea that the pope--or any other individual--can ever speak infallibly was unknown in antiquity.

In addition to these general problems, one pope (Honorius I) was anathematized as a monothelite by the Sixth Ecumenical Council for his heretical correspondence with Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Some of the most respected Roman historians, and most Eastern scholars believe his letter constitutes an ex cathedra document, being, as it was, a definitive doctrinal statement issued in response to a request for theological definition. The supporters of infallibility, of course, do not believe that his letter is an ex cathedra pronouncement.

Originally posted by The Jackal God keys of the kingdom akolouthos mentioned the papacy being monarchic - not an invalid point: peter keys' following upon the passage from Isaiah 22:20 and following, where it talks of the key to the House of David.

The gift of the keys to Peter (Matthew 16) does signify a special authority given to Peter. Indeed Peter generally speaks for the rest; still, we must remember that Peter's status cannot be separated from his confession. If his successor falls into error, he cannot exercise the prerogatives that rightly belong to the See of Peter.

That said, each of the Patriarchal sees possesses certain prerogatives. Rome's include, among other things, the right to hear appeals, the right to sit in the first seat at an ecumenical council, etc. The gift of the keys and ancient Roman prerogatives cannot, however, be taken to imply an absolute monarchical authority. Indeed Peter himself never presumed to act in an authoritarian fashion. While he spoke first, he spoke with the Church and never in its despite.

Originally posted by The Jackal God strengthening brethren Lk 22:31-32 when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. Can't think of a time in history that this is more appropriate, where some of our Christian brethren have been shaken more than others, and a time when strong Christian leadership is needed.

Aye, and that is why the Orthodox earnestly await a day when the popes are once again in communion with the Church. Then, they can exercise the rights and privileges that properly belong to a canonical Bishop of Rome. From an Orthodox perspective, however, the pope can hardly strengthen Christian brethren in the orthodox faith if he does not share that faith, in every particular, himself.

Originally posted by The Jackal God Primus inter pares - the honor part is clear and uncontested, the authority is the rub.

Aye, that is the question. We Orthodox do recognize the primacy of honor to which a canonical bishop of Rome is entitled. We also recognize that the Roman see has certain prerogatives belonging exclusively to her. We do not, however, recognize the primacy as it has been interpreted in the West--and especially as it has been interpreted by the Roman Church since the Schism.



Thank you for moving that post. I think that this has the potential to be a wonderful thread. Could you please do me one more favor and introduce yourself? I know--or at least I think I know--that you are Catholic, but I think if everyone introduces themselves and notes their religious affiliation we will be more able to respectfully relate to each other.

God bless and keep you.

-Akolouthos

Edited by Akolouthos - 04-Aug-2007 at 03:43

Sorry it took me so long to respond; I've been a bit strapped for time. I may or may not be able to get to the forum over the course of the next couple of days. Anyway, here we go...

Originally posted by The_Jackal_God yes, i am catholic. here's another passage supporting the Roman interpretation: Acts of the Apostles, Peter's visit to Cornelius - Holy Spirit reveals something to Peter, and Peter alone, and Peter alone reveals it to the Church as a whole by himself, on his own authority.

I guess my question would run thus: how does it help the Roman interpretation?

Don't get me wrong, the meaning you have ascribed to the passage would seem to support part of the Roman understanding of papal primacy, but is that the way the passage has been interpreted by the Church through the ages? I briefly skimmed what Chrysostom and Augustine had to say about the passage, and couldn't find anything that suggests the rather narrow interpretation suggested above.

Still, I think the assertion that the "Holy Spirit reveals something to Peter," and Peter subsequently reveals it to the Church on his own authority tells part of the story; I would, however, remove the word "alone" from the statement. For you see Peter, on his own apostolic authority, receives the message from the Holy Spirit on behalf of the Church; he is appointed as the one to relay this divine instruction to the rest of the early Church. But why does Peter first receive this message?

Let us engage in a bit of exegesis--and only a bit for now.  You have suggested one reason why Peter is the one to receive this message--although I feel that you have read a bit much into it; Peter receives the message in the context of his role as the leader of the Apostles. Still, it is recorded in the Scriptures that Peter has a bit of trouble with this message. Indeed he receives this message in Acts 10, plays the instrumental role in the establishment of the early Gentile Church, and defends the revelation in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem. In Galatians 2, however, it is noted that Peter allowed himself to fall into hypocrisy, and did not heed the spirit of the decree of Jerusalem that he, himself, had helped to secure. Paul corrected Peter, and the fullness of the revelation concerning the Gentiles, which was first committed to Peter, was preserved because of that correction.

The leadership role held by Peter in the early Church is not a matter of dispute; the nature of that leadership is. I fail to see how Acts 10, when taken in the context of Scripture, provides an argument in favor of a monarchical papacy.

-Akolouthos

Edited by Akolouthos - 07-Aug-2007 at 13:24

Great thread Akolouthos!

welcome to the forum  B'tzalel91, your contribution is much appreciated

Edited by Leonidas - 11-Aug-2007 at 09:01

My apologies to you all; I have been away for a bit. I returned, however, to find that this discussion has gone on quite civilly and successfully without me--no surprise there.  I will take a closer look at this thread in the next couple of days, and look forward to discussing this important topic with you all. I will also, gradually, be responding to pms; once again, my apologies for the delay.

Welcome to the thread Justinian, arch.buff, and Leonidas, and welcome to the forum B'tzalel91!

-Akolouthos

good posts all...

one thing that it appears to me to be an assumption, maybe we could talk about it, that the question is either papal supremacy (and infallibility) OR ecumenical decrees/councils. someone noted hesitancy something to the effect of "what if the pope interfered too much" w/ orthodox churches were they to accept papal supremacy.

first, i don't think it is a matter of one or the other. the idea of papal infallibility doesn't make Church councils obsolete in any way. In fact, Church councils and synods have been used much more than papal declarations ex cathedra (infallibility); and then if we mention the national chapters, then that really shows how much more vibrant the concept of collegiality is being used in the Western Church alongside the concept of papal infallibility. (which follows the pattern of the gospels and early church history - two modes of reaching Truth)

that Clement's letter is now not attributed to him is news to me. ofc, the last i touched on that subject was apologetics in highschool 10 years ago. i'll look into that.

finally, with the hesitancy towards roman universal immediate jurisdiction, perhaps take a look at the degree of Papal interference in the Sees of the other Western Bishops. you won't find much, even in the case of Bishops who are on the edge of the flock. i wouldn't expect more interference in the east than in the west, were they to reunite.

on the side, i went to an Abyssinian Orthodox Christmas vigil mass. very nice, very long, didn't understand a word, but very nice.

Originally posted by B'tzalel91   In regards to arch.buff, I would have to disagree enthusiastically with the statement that most Christians take the Gospels to spell out, well, anything in simple and plain language. Protestants and fundamentalists may try to interpret scripture in a simple manner, but Catholics and Eastern Christians, who make up by far the majority of Christianity, have a proud and vibrant tradition of interpretation. One can not take anything for granted when reading scripture, especially since plain meaning differs vastly based on who is reading the scripture. As Akolouthos has pointed out, there is significant basis on which to interpret scripture as placing the Pope of Rome as a first among equals, not the sole and omniscient head of the Church.   As for the letter, first, it is now generally dated to before the papacy of Pope Clement I, falling during the papacy of St. Peter if the numbering of Clement as the second pope is accepted, thus negating the issue of the letter taking a leadership role. Additionally, the authorisation is further doubted as Clement is never mentioned by name in the letter. Similarly, the authority and reliability of the letter was doubted enough that even though it was written around the same time as the Book of Revelation and widely circulated throughout much of the Byzantine Empire, it was not placed in the official cannon of the bible. More importantly, the letter, from what I have seen, does not take the definitive leadership role equatable to the theology of the papacy in modern Catholicism that you say it does. The letter is merely adressed as "the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth". Here the pope is taking an advisory role just as any other patriarch of the Pentarchy would.

Edited by arch.buff - 15-Aug-2007 at 13:07

Originally posted by arch.buff Apologies Akolouthos for not following the rules and introducing myself.   Im arch.buff and I am Catholic. One would presume by the admission that I sternly believe in the nature of the Pope. Well....its not so cut-and-dry for me at this point in my life it is a truth, or lack there of, that I struggle with. Through prayer and a ever growing knowledge on the matter I hope to one day be fully immersed in the truth, but for now I am torn.

No apologies necessary, arch.buff. Thanks for looking over the rules; I am convinced that you have looked over the rules both by your introduction and by the non-polemical nature of your post.

Though I believe we might differ with regard to the interpretation of Clement's letter, I have always heard it attributed to Clement until very recently. It would appear, however, that B'tzalel is correct in asserting that some modern scholars have found reason to doubt Clement's authorship, but I myself will continue to hold to the majority view which affirms the traditional position asserting Clementine authorship.

Originally posted by arch.buff Again I myself, a Catholic, am on the fence about the nature of the Bishop of Rome but I can see some content that suggests it and the one thing keeping me going is the New Testament and Peters actions therein...   Also sorry for the bad grammar if there is any, blew right thru this post and to b'tzale sorry if I offended you or anyone else here on the board I guess sometimes I get a lil too tongue-and-cheek. I dont view the Bible as a simple book, it was just a corny phrase that "fit the bill" at the time....so to speak.      Peace be with you all,   Arch.buff

Could you please elaborate as to which passages you believe support the Roman Catholic interpretation and why? It is always interesting to see how differing interpretations lead to differing theological viewpoints. In so many of these passages the separation between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology is a matter of degree; we agree on a substantial number of underlying issues.

Originally posted by The Jackal God ako, you seem like you studied the councils extensively. bravo! can you tell me which cannons weren't accepted in the west from Chalcedon?

Thank you.

Canon II of the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) and Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) were not accepted by Rome at first. As I recall they gained eventual acceptance after the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople, but I may be wrong here--I apologize, but I do not have my books with me. I also believe that one of the canons (was it XXVIII again?) of Chalcedon granted the Patriarch of Constantinople the right to hear appeals from individuals outside of his immediate jurisdiction--a right previously granted to Rome by the local Council of Sardica (343 A.D. ?).

The canons were still promulgated in the East (and were de facto in force universally, despite the refusal of successive popes to ratify them). Still, it is important to note that Constantinople I constitutes, as near as I can figure, the first time the Bishop of Rome tried to exercise a "line-item veto." The difficult thing about this whole era is that the Roman bishops were claiming prerogatives that weren't recognized by the Eastern Patriarchs and the bishops of Constantinople were claiming prerogatives that weren't recognized by the Pope.

Originally posted by The Jackal God ako, here's a question for you: i dont understand well the relationship between the various Orthodox Churches. for instance, i think the Copts and Abyssinians consider themselves theologically, ecclesiastically separate from the others and each other (Monophysites?)

Well the Ethiopians and Copts are part of the Oriental Orthodox Communion, and they are monophysites--although they would prefer the term miaphysites, as they, like the Orthodox and Catholic churches, oppose Eutychian monophysitism. They are not in communion with the Orthodox Church, but there is a good deal of ecumenical dialogue going on. Many feel that the point of contention between orthodox and the monophysites was exaggerated due to the contentious nature of fifth century theological dialogue.

Originally posted by The Jackal god what about the Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian...Orthodox Churches? can you explain it bearing in mind the mindset of a Roman Catholic, where it seems on first impressions there is more unity across national boundaries?

Well, if you ask famous Catholic apologist Scott Hahn (who, while he is extremely well versed *ahem* when it comes to Scripture and Tradition, is fairly clueless when it comes to Orthodox ecclesiology), we are exactly like Protestants only divided along ethnic lines.

Actually, the Orthodox national churches are in full communion with each other--if I prepare I may receive communion in the Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, etc. churches. This is actually quite like the situation in the New Testament era; think of the national churches as local manifestations of the universal body (or in scriptural terms as "the Church at Russia," "the Church at Greece," and so on).

I don't know if that is very helpful, and apologize if it is not. Please let me know if I have failed to clearly present the Orthodox perspective.

-Akolouthos

Originally posted by The_Jackal_God so if orthodoxy is organized around national churches, is there an american orthodox church, australian, welsh...and if not, why? and the various national orthodox churches are in complete theological and juridical communion?