Church and Papcy-ANSWERS

[sin_vladimirov]

In one of the posts on this forum GITLANCE asked a question regarding Papacy in the early Church. I will answer it as a new topic due to my view that there is no, much, knowledge about this question. So, I would like to present some explanation.

Glory to the Lord always.

Kyrie eleison.

May God help me to explain this in a way that will glorify Him and Him only for to Him glory only belongs.
Lord Jesus Chirst, the Lover of human kin blessed are You now and ever and ever unto the ages of ages. Amin.
All Holy Mary, our Queen in Heaven and Mother of our God, pray to God for us.
All Saints of Holy Church Triumphant pray to God for the Church Militant.

Holy God Holy Mighty Holy Immortal have mercy on us.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, sinner.


"Can anyone prove to me, using scripture, ECFs, councils, etc, that the Bishop of Rome was never seen as the head of the universal church, but rather only the first among equals with the bishops?"
GITLANCE


This is a question of questions. In order to seriously answer this question I think that one must address a huge variety of questions.

Firstly, one has to address WHY DOES LATIN CURIA HOLDS THAT POPE IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. Then one has to address the issue of "prerogatives" of this Papal Power, that is whether we are talking of PREROGATIVE OF POWER or PREROGATIVE OF HONOUR. And in the end, one would have to see WHAT IS THE ACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIR IN THE EARLY CHURCH.

Before I continue, I would like to state that my oppinion is the same as oppinion of Eastern Orthodox Church. I will not say anything new, but rather, repeat what thousands of Bishops of the holy Church have said before.

WHY DOES LATIN CURIA HOLDS THAT POPE IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH?

The simple answer would be a verse in a Holy Gospel of Matthew XVI,18-19.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This is the 'theological scriptural proof' that Latin Church will use in order to convey its 'universal authority'. This oppinion is seriously wrong due to a complete lack of respect for the actual text of the Holy Gospel and Tradition of Holy Church in this respect.

Firstly, I will not go int this argument because it has been covered before, and honestly, I do not think that it (contra-Latin explanation) needs to be repated again and again. The only thing I WILL say is that Latins, got it wrong.

What I would like to try to examine is some aspects how Church in first centuries think about this. Here are some examples:

"Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world (EUSEBIUS-Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176).

‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable
(The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (AUGUSTINE, Sermon 229).

Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him (AMBROSE, Commentary in Luke VI.98, CSEL 32.4).

They sucked honey out of the firm rock,’ (Deut. xxxii.13): for the flesh of Christ is a rock, which redeemed heaven and the whole world (AMBROSE, Epistle 43.9.)

He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it...(Sant Chrysostom, On Matthew, Homily 82.3, p. 494).

Other foundation no man can lay but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus (1 Cor. iii.11). It is necessary to build upon, not to lay foundations. For it is impossible for him who wishes to build wisely to lay another foundation. The blessed Peter also laid this foundation, or rather the Lord Himself. For Peter having said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;’ the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Therefore call not yourselves after men’s names, for Christ is the foundation (St. Theodoret of Cyr, 117Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1,12.).

It is likely that by these words (Is. 33:16) our Lord Jesus Christ is called a rock, in Whom, as some cave or sheepfold, the Church is conceived as having a safe and unshaken abiding place for its well-being; ‘For thou art Peter,’ the Saviour says, ‘and upon this rock I will build My Church’ (Cyril of AlexandriaCommentary on Isaiah 3.iii, on Isaiah 28:16).

This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven...The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father’s revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth....Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God (Hilaryof Poitiers,On The Trinity, Book VI.36,37; Book II.23; Book VI.20.).

The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built...For the Church was founded upon a rock...upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name FROM this rock (Mt. 16.18) (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 7.25,).

EPIPHANIUS
Epiphanius was born in Palestine and was bishop of Salamis on Cyprus. He was an ardent defender of Nicene orthodoxy. He gives an interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16 that is consistent with the overall Eastern exegesis:
He confessed that ‘Christ’ is ‘the Son of the living God,’ and was told, ‘On this rock of sure faith will I build my church’—for he plainly confessed that Christ is true Son (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Books II and III, Haer. 59.7, 6-8,3, pp. 108-109).

BASIL OF SELEUCIA
St.Basil was a fifth century Eastern bishop of Seleucia in Isauria. He took part in the Council of Chalcedon in 451:
Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it ‘Peter,’ perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: ‘For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ To whom be glory and power forever (Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297).

PAUL OF EMESA (Died—ca. A.D. 444)
St.Paul was consecrated bishop of Emesa just after 410 A.D. He took part in the Council of Ephesus:
Whom do you say that I am?’ Instantly, the Coryphaeus of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God...Upon this faith the Church of God has been founded. With this expectation, upon this rock the Lord God placed the foundations of the Church (Homily of the Nativity).

ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS (Defender of the Holy Icons)
This is that firm and immovable faith upon which, as upon the rock whose surname you bear, the Church is founded. Against this the gates of hell, the mouths of heretics, the machines of demons—for they will attack—will not prevail. They will take up arms but they will not conquer (Homily on the Transfiguration, M.P.G., Vol. 96, Col. 554-555).
This rock was Christ, the incarnate Word of God, the Lord, for Paul clearly teaches us: ‘The rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. 10:4) (Homily on the Transfiguration, M.P.G., Vol. 96, Col. 548).



I will not say anything more on this. (to be continued)

[sin_vladimirov]

CONTINUATION



The second question is the question of PREROGATIVE. Latin Curia will state that Pope has prerogative of power. This is wrong. Church was always true to herself. Rome IS First, but in HONOUR not in power. Why is Rome First, because it was the seat IN THE MOST IMPORTANT CITY OF THE EMPIRE. Not because of St. Peter. St. Peter was, BEFORE BECOMING THE BISHOP OF ROME BISHOP OF ANTIOCH.



So if the Latin Curia is correct in its exegesis of Mt. XVI, 18. then ANTIOCH is the primal seat. Not Rome.

One intersesting thing about THE KEYS OF ST. PETER:

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now (Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1)

Interesting, is St. John Chrysostome making a mistake here? I dont think so.
According to Mt. XVIII, 18. ALL OF THE APOSTLES HAD THE AUTHORITY to bind and loose.


The fact that Rome was primal seat in Christedom HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ST. PETER. It has EVERYTHING TO DO with the fact that the ROME was capital od the empire.

ROME HAS PRIMACY OF HONOUR NOT OF POWER.

ROME IS PRIMAL SEAT BECAUSE OF ITS STATUS IN THE EMPIRE, NOT BECAUSE OF ST. PETER.

So, proving BOTH of these statements I will quote JUST COUPLE OF CANONS OF The Holy Oecumenical Synods:


Canon VI, 1st Oecumenica council of the Catholic Church-Nikea
Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the custom of the bishop of Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces, let the seniority be preserved to the Churches.

Canonn VII, 1st OC
Inasmuch as a custom has prevailed, and an ancient tradition, for the Bishop in Aelia to be honored, let him have the sequence of honor, with the Metropolitan having his own dignity preserved.

Canon III, 2nd OC - Constantinople
Let the Bishop of Constantinople, however, have the priorities of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because of its being New Rome.

Canon XXVII, 4th OC - Chalcedon
Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her...


Did the Church in those times belive that ONE BISHOP HAD SUPERMACY OF POWER OVER THE OTHER?
NO.

...since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. (The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics, 250 AD)

"For no one of us, setteth himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying." What could be more kind? what more humble? Surely there is here no authority restraining us from inquiry into what is truth. "Inasmuch as every bishop," he says, "in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another," (Augustine-Anti-Donatist Writings, Book III, Chapter 3, 5)


What is the actual state in the Church?

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last..There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part (Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33, pp. 205, 207).


What is St. John Chrysostome talking about? Lets see.

When it came to Protocouncil of Jerusalem, ALL THE APOSTLES AND PRESBYTERS came together to consider the matter (Acts 15,6). Not just Peter. ALL OF THEM!

And Peter, the leader of the flock, the sheperd of his faithful, father of the thousands, stood up and gave his oppinion (Acts 15,7-11). Then Varnavas and Paul talked (Acts 15,12-13). Then James the blessed brother of Our Lord, the First Episkopos of Jerusalem gave his oppinion (Acts 15, 12-21) and MADE A JUDGEMENT (Acts 15,19), James made the judgement, not Peter, James! And then IT PLEASED ALL THE APOSTLES AND PRESBYTERS, WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH (Acts 15,22) to do so and so. At the end of the meeting the council decided to write the canon law of its kind and send the chosen men to give it to the Church in Anthioch, which starts with the words:"The apostles, the presbyters and the brethren to the...".

This is the formulae, which was used always, everywhere and by all, until, some sad man, hundreds of years later came up with Papal supremacy.

Saint Peter was important member of the council, as all the Bishops of Rome will be, I will not go into opposite way and his role must not be minimised as some would do, but, also, his role can not be emphysised as Latin West is doing.

We have seven Oecumenical councils wich used this very formulea, with Pentarchy and thousand years, even more, passed before Pope "became" what some hold him to be.

Having said all of this, I do wish to state my complete and full appreciation for the children, my brothers and sisters in Lord, of the Latin Church.





I belive that this is what it is. God have mercy on me.



In ICXC

Stefan+

[Cjwinnit]

Perhaps we should be speaking more to the Orthodox.

The arguments over things like the form of the Eucharist and calendar issues, are they incompatible with communion with other churches or are they local doctrinal issues that can be different within a communion?

[Philip]

The arguments over things like the form of the Eucharist and


Not sure. Will have to check.

calendar issues,

Old Calendar vs New Calendar? That's up to the bishop, I think. How the date of Pascha/Easter is calculated? That is probably a bit more sticky.

[Colabomb]

CONTINUATION



The second question is the question of PREROGATIVE. Latin Curia will state that Pope has prerogative of power. This is wrong. Church was always true to herself. Rome IS First, but in HONOUR not in power. Why is Rome First, because it was the seat IN THE MOST IMPORTANT CITY OF THE EMPIRE. Not because of St. Peter. St. Peter was, BEFORE BECOMING THE BISHOP OF ROME BISHOP OF ANTIOCH.



So if the Latin Curia is correct in its exegesis of Mt. XVI, 18. then ANTIOCH is the primal seat. Not Rome.

One intersesting thing about THE KEYS OF ST. PETER:

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now (Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1)

Interesting, is St. John Chrysostome making a mistake here? I dont think so.
According to Mt. XVIII, 18. ALL OF THE APOSTLES HAD THE AUTHORITY to bind and loose.


The fact that Rome was primal seat in Christedom HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ST. PETER. It has EVERYTHING TO DO with the fact that the ROME was capital od the empire.

ROME HAS PRIMACY OF HONOUR NOT OF POWER.

ROME IS PRIMAL SEAT BECAUSE OF ITS STATUS IN THE EMPIRE, NOT BECAUSE OF ST. PETER.

So, proving BOTH of these statements I will quote JUST COUPLE OF CANONS OF The Holy Oecumenical Synods:


Canon VI, 1st Oecumenica council of the Catholic Church-Nikea
Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the custom of the bishop of Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces, let the seniority be preserved to the Churches.

Canonn VII, 1st OC
Inasmuch as a custom has prevailed, and an ancient tradition, for the Bishop in Aelia to be honored, let him have the sequence of honor, with the Metropolitan having his own dignity preserved.

Canon III, 2nd OC - Constantinople
Let the Bishop of Constantinople, however, have the priorities of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because of its being New Rome.

Canon XXVII, 4th OC - Chalcedon
Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her...


Did the Church in those times belive that ONE BISHOP HAD SUPERMACY OF POWER OVER THE OTHER?
NO.

...since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. (The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics, 250 AD)

"For no one of us, setteth himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying." What could be more kind? what more humble? Surely there is here no authority restraining us from inquiry into what is truth. "Inasmuch as every bishop," he says, "in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another," (Augustine-Anti-Donatist Writings, Book III, Chapter 3, 5)


What is the actual state in the Church?

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last..There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part (Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33, pp. 205, 207).


What is St. John Chrysostome talking about? Lets see.

When it came to Protocouncil of Jerusalem, ALL THE APOSTLES AND PRESBYTERS came together to consider the matter (Acts 15,6). Not just Peter. ALL OF THEM!

And Peter, the leader of the flock, the sheperd of his faithful, father of the thousands, stood up and gave his oppinion (Acts 15,7-11). Then Varnavas and Paul talked (Acts 15,12-13). Then James the blessed brother of Our Lord, the First Episkopos of Jerusalem gave his oppinion (Acts 15, 12-21) and MADE A JUDGEMENT (Acts 15,19), James made the judgement, not Peter, James! And then IT PLEASED ALL THE APOSTLES AND PRESBYTERS, WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH (Acts 15,22) to do so and so. At the end of the meeting the council decided to write the canon law of its kind and send the chosen men to give it to the Church in Anthioch, which starts with the words:"The apostles, the presbyters and the brethren to the...".

This is the formulae, which was used always, everywhere and by all, until, some sad man, hundreds of years later came up with Papal supremacy.

Saint Peter was important member of the council, as all the Bishops of Rome will be, I will not go into opposite way and his role must not be minimised as some would do, but, also, his role can not be emphysised as Latin West is doing.

We have seven Oecumenical councils wich used this very formulea, with Pentarchy and thousand years, even more, passed before Pope "became" what some hold him to be.

Having said all of this, I do wish to state my complete and full appreciation for the children, my brothers and sisters in Lord, of the Latin Church.





I belive that this is what it is. God have mercy on me.



In ICXC

Stefan+
Thank you Brother, I have been Recently considering and chewing out this issue myself. Now I have a bit more from the other side.

Pray for me Brother.

[Colabomb]

CONTINUATION



The second question is the question of PREROGATIVE. Latin Curia will state that Pope has prerogative of power. This is wrong. Church was always true to herself. Rome IS First, but in HONOUR not in power. Why is Rome First, because it was the seat IN THE MOST IMPORTANT CITY OF THE EMPIRE. Not because of St. Peter. St. Peter was, BEFORE BECOMING THE BISHOP OF ROME BISHOP OF ANTIOCH.



So if the Latin Curia is correct in its exegesis of Mt. XVI, 18. then ANTIOCH is the primal seat. Not Rome.

One intersesting thing about THE KEYS OF ST. PETER:

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now (Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1)

Interesting, is St. John Chrysostome making a mistake here? I dont think so.
According to Mt. XVIII, 18. ALL OF THE APOSTLES HAD THE AUTHORITY to bind and loose.


The fact that Rome was primal seat in Christedom HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ST. PETER. It has EVERYTHING TO DO with the fact that the ROME was capital od the empire.

ROME HAS PRIMACY OF HONOUR NOT OF POWER.

ROME IS PRIMAL SEAT BECAUSE OF ITS STATUS IN THE EMPIRE, NOT BECAUSE OF ST. PETER.

So, proving BOTH of these statements I will quote JUST COUPLE OF CANONS OF The Holy Oecumenical Synods:


Canon VI, 1st Oecumenica council of the Catholic Church-Nikea
Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the custom of the bishop of Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces, let the seniority be preserved to the Churches.

Canonn VII, 1st OC
Inasmuch as a custom has prevailed, and an ancient tradition, for the Bishop in Aelia to be honored, let him have the sequence of honor, with the Metropolitan having his own dignity preserved.

Canon III, 2nd OC - Constantinople
Let the Bishop of Constantinople, however, have the priorities of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because of its being New Rome.

Canon XXVII, 4th OC - Chalcedon
Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her...


Did the Church in those times belive that ONE BISHOP HAD SUPERMACY OF POWER OVER THE OTHER?
NO.

...since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. (The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics, 250 AD)

"For no one of us, setteth himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying." What could be more kind? what more humble? Surely there is here no authority restraining us from inquiry into what is truth. "Inasmuch as every bishop," he says, "in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another," (Augustine-Anti-Donatist Writings, Book III, Chapter 3, 5)


What is the actual state in the Church?

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last..There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part (Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33, pp. 205, 207).


What is St. John Chrysostome talking about? Lets see.

When it came to Protocouncil of Jerusalem, ALL THE APOSTLES AND PRESBYTERS came together to consider the matter (Acts 15,6). Not just Peter. ALL OF THEM!

And Peter, the leader of the flock, the sheperd of his faithful, father of the thousands, stood up and gave his oppinion (Acts 15,7-11). Then Varnavas and Paul talked (Acts 15,12-13). Then James the blessed brother of Our Lord, the First Episkopos of Jerusalem gave his oppinion (Acts 15, 12-21) and MADE A JUDGEMENT (Acts 15,19), James made the judgement, not Peter, James! And then IT PLEASED ALL THE APOSTLES AND PRESBYTERS, WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH (Acts 15,22) to do so and so. At the end of the meeting the council decided to write the canon law of its kind and send the chosen men to give it to the Church in Anthioch, which starts with the words:"The apostles, the presbyters and the brethren to the...".

This is the formulae, which was used always, everywhere and by all, until, some sad man, hundreds of years later came up with Papal supremacy.

Saint Peter was important member of the council, as all the Bishops of Rome will be, I will not go into opposite way and his role must not be minimised as some would do, but, also, his role can not be emphysised as Latin West is doing.

We have seven Oecumenical councils wich used this very formulea, with Pentarchy and thousand years, even more, passed before Pope "became" what some hold him to be.

Having said all of this, I do wish to state my complete and full appreciation for the children, my brothers and sisters in Lord, of the Latin Church.





I belive that this is what it is. God have mercy on me.



In ICXC

Stefan+
The more I read this, the more I feel you are correct.

[Philip]

The arguments over things like the form of the Eucharist

There is a Western Rite practiced by some in the Church of Antioch, perhaps some others. They offer the Eucharist in a style similar to Catholics(though the chalice is not withheld)/Anglicans/Lutherans. The priciple difference in the form would be that the Orthodox used leavened bread.

[SirTimothy]

Old Calendar vs New Calendar? That's up to the bishop, I think. How the date of Pascha/Easter is calculated? That is probably a bit more sticky.

Personally, Pascha/Easter is no biggie for me. I celebrate Christ's sacrifice and resurection once for all on the cross every week, so the date of Pascha/Easter is not really a big deal for me... I'd personally be very happy to compromise with your dating, so long as we get to keep all the Kalendarized Anglicans...

Timothy

[Fish and Bread]

The Eastern Orthodox faith and practice is actually not that incompatible with Anglicanism where you strip off some of the veneration of saints that is more akin to what goes on in Roman Catholicism than in most Anglican churches (Excluding Anglo-Catholic parishes). This is especially true when you take into account that there are now western-rite Eastern Orthodox parishes. They are also recognize our orders to a limited degree.

The problem seems to be, honestly, that Eastern Orthodoxy is just simply less flexible than most of our other ecumenical partners. I don't mean it as a criticism, just an observation. The approach seems to be similar to the Roman Catholic "my way or the high way" idea of unity. And anyone who takes that approach is ultimately going to have trouble unifying with anyone who has a spine. If Eastern Orthodoxy were half as flexible as the Evangelical Lutherans, we'd have an intercommunion agreement already. Instead, there is idea that Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs are their own autocractic Kings with vast swaths of power over the faithful whom we must all bow before. It's more similar to the Roman Catholic concept of a bishop than the Anglican/Lutheran one.

People who'd like to inform themselves more on this issue may want to look up some the letters exchanged between Protestant Reformers and one of the Patriarchs shortly after Martin Luther's death. The Protestants were extremely deferential and tried to reconcile their beliefs with the EOC but got back replies like "I'm sorry to see that you disagree with us, that is to say, with the truth" and requests that basically amounted to the equivalant of "Stop pestering us you heretics, we grow weary of answering your letters.". It is kind of amusing, but not really condusive to true dialogue.

John

[Albion]

St. Peter was, BEFORE BECOMING THE BISHOP OF ROME, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH.

Very true... and a good point to make. Many in the West are so "plugged into" the idea they have been taught that "Jesus made Peter the first Pope and with it intended for a worldwide jursidiction for his successors in Rome," that they don't even realize that Peter was bishop of Antioch and, further, that there are lines of bishops in several communions which trace their line of Apostolic Succession from Peter also--but from Peter in Antioch.

[Aymn27]

There is a Western Rite practiced by some in the Church of Antioch, perhaps some others. They offer the Eucharist in a style similar to Catholics(though the chalice is not withheld)/Anglicans/Lutherans. The priciple difference in the form would be that the Orthodox used leavened bread.

Actually, the chalice is not withheld in RC churches. For several years now, Communion under both kinds has been the norm (at least in my diocese).

[julian the apostate]

good post vladimir

much thanks
much liberty
much grace
much Christ

peace

[Fish and Bread]

Actually, the chalice is not withheld in RC churches.

The chalice is still withheld in some RC parishes. A very large parish attended by several members of my family recently considered a switch from communion under both forms to simply offering the bread. Used as justication for this was exactly the same reasoning they used in the Middle Ages. The Roman church has not made as much progress as they'd like us to believe.

John

[Philip]

The problem seems to be, honestly, that Eastern Orthodoxy is just simply less flexible than most of our other ecumenical partners. I don't mean it as a criticism, just an observation.

No problem. I take that as a compliment.


Instead, there is idea that Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs are their own autocractic Kings with vast swaths of power over the faithful whom we must all bow before. It's more similar to the Roman Catholic concept of a bishop than the Anglican/Lutheran one.

I think you misunderstand Orthodoxy on this point.

[Rilian]

-

[Fish and Bread]

I think you misunderstand Orthodoxy on this point.

Well, I must admit, I am only able to go on what I've read since I don't have any experience within Eastern Orthodox parishes. How would you describe the relationship of the Eastern Orthodox bishops to the laity as it occurs in practice? How would you compare and constrast that relationship with the way Roman Catholic bishops relate to the laity? Anglican bishops? Lutheran bishops?

John

[Aymn27]

The chalice is still withheld in some RC parishes. A very large parish attended by several members of my family recently considered a switch from communion under both forms to simply offering the bread. Used as justication for this was exactly the same reasoning they used in the Middle Ages. The Roman church has not made as much progress as they'd like us to believe.

JohnWhat was that? That Jesus is present fully under both forms, therefore it is "unnecessary" to receive both?

[Fish and Bread]

What was that? That Jesus is present fully under both forms, therefore it is "unnecessary" to receive both?

Yes, which in my view is contrary to the clear message of the gospel, where Jesus says the bread is his body and the wine is his blood and that we must eat his body and drink his blood to have life. I know some very conservative Roman Catholics who are very active in their parish lives who agree with me. This idea that the bread can be Jesus' blood and the wine can be Jesus' body is simply not supportable using the bible. Now, in an extreme situation, I agree that God probably would provide for full communion without the chalice, but why wouldn't we obey Christ's command fully when we have wine available to use? People threw a fit when their parish proposed doing away with the chalice and rightly so. I can only assume they thought better of it because I'm told it hasn't been mentioned in several months. There are some Roman Catholic parishes out there who actually only use one form, though.

To me, this is retrogressive in the extreme. It sometimes seems as though the only thing the RCC learned from the reformation is that it has to be a little more careful about selling indulgences and overt corruption, and, four hundred years after the fact, it seems to have finally learned that having masses in a language most people can understand just might be a good idea. We have to be very careful about assuming for ecumenical reasons that the RCC has fully or near-fully reformed itself, though. We don't want our church to be swept away in a tide of deformation in an attempt to reconcile. We need to hold fast to our faith while still working for unity and pray for a good understanding of what can and can't be compromised to that end.

John

[sin_vladimirov]

I have to admit that I am not well informed in questions regarding the differences between great Communions of Orthodox and Anglican confessions, and that at this stage I can not make any valuable comments.

I will, God willing, try to reasearch these in days to come.

Lord have mercy on us all.

[Aymn27]

Fish and Breadmessage of the gospel, where Jesus says the bread is his body and the wine is his blood and that we must eat his body and drink his blood to have life. I know some very conservative Roman Catholics who are very active in their parish lives who agree with me. This idea that the bread can be Jesus' blood and the wine can be Jesus' body is simply not supportable using the bible. Now, in an extreme situation, I agree that God probably would provide for full communion without the chalice, but why wouldn't we obey Christ's command fully when we have wine available to use? People threw a fit when their parish proposed doing away with the chalice and rightly so. I can only assume they thought better of it because I'm told it hasn't been mentioned in several months. There are some Roman Catholic parishes out there who actually only use one form, though.
I never really thought about it, really. It just seems to me that Jesus is present body, blood, soul and divinity under both species - therefore it is not "necessary" to receive both...but you may be correct??!! My diocese has been offering both for several years now, even when it is a large crowd of several thousands. I wasn't arguing the point, I was just asking for clarification.


To me, this is retrogressive in the extreme. It sometimes seems as though the only thing the RCC learned from the reformation is that it has to be a little more careful about selling indulgences and overt corruption, and, four hundred years after the fact, it seems to have finally learned that having masses in a language most people can understand just might be a good idea.
Well, with the new pope, some of that may even change!! The ultra-traditionalists want it back, and they are a powerful force in the church, I'm sure they are rejoicing at Pope Benedict being named as Pope. He is much farther to the traditional right than I am comfortable with, but alas, he may surprise me.

[Simon_Templar]

Having the service in an understandable language is good, in fact, I'm sure its the best and only reasonable way things should be done.

However, as a student of latin, i really enjoy latin and would love to include it at least in some part in a service :)

[Fish and Bread]

I never really thought about it, really. It just seems to me that Jesus is present body, blood, soul and divinity under both species - therefore it is not "necessary" to receive both...but you may be correct??!!

Well, he certainly could make himself present under both species if he wanted to and I'm not one to say he isn't. At the same time, though, in the bible Christ pretty clearly spells out "bread=body" and "wine=blood" and says to consume both. The Roman Catholic church is very careful to make sure there is gluten in the bread because they think Christ used gluten hosts (Going so far as to not give non-gluten wafers to the gluten-intolerant), yet that's not really clearly spelled out anywhere and simply a guess, so why would they restrict people from partaking in something that Christ is clearly recording in scripture and tradition from commanding us to do? It just seems like an inconsistancy to me, like they're focusing on a nat and missing the camel. It seems like a fairly simple command to follow in this day and age -- there are very few situations where wine is hard to come by.

I wasn't arguing the point, I was just asking for clarification.

I know. I'm not trying to argue either. I just like pontificating. ;-)

Well, with the new pope, some of that may even change!! The ultra-traditionalists want it back, and they are a powerful force in the church, I'm sure they are rejoicing at Pope Benedict being named as Pope. He is much farther to the traditional right than I am comfortable with, but alas, he may surprise me.

I have already had a co-worker who has been attending a RCC parish for years mention the new Pope and ask me the service times at the Episcopalian parish I attend. Benedict XVI is going to have to tread very carefully if he wants to maintain membership numbers in the west, in sounds like.

John

[Colabomb]

Well, he certainly could make himself present under both species if he wanted to and I'm not one to say he isn't. At the same time, though, in the bible Christ pretty clearly spells out "bread=body" and "wine=blood" and says to consume both. The Roman Catholic church is very careful to make sure there is gluten in the bread because they think Christ used gluten hosts (Going so far as to not give non-gluten wafers to the gluten-intolerant), yet that's not really clearly spelled out anywhere and simply a guess, so why would they restrict people from partaking in something that Christ is clearly recording in scripture and tradition from commanding us to do? It just seems like an inconsistancy to me, like they're focusing on a nat and missing the camel. It seems like a fairly simple command to follow in this day and age -- there are very few situations where wine is hard to come by.



I know. I'm not trying to argue either. I just like pontificating. ;-)



I have already had a co-worker who has been attending a RCC parish for years mention the new Pope and ask me the service times at the Episcopalian parish I attend. Benedict XVI is going to have to tread very carefully if he wants to maintain membership numbers in the west, in sounds like.

John


I am sure Pope Benedict is more concerned with maintaining what he considers orthodoxy, than keeping up numbers....

Remember this is not a political office but a Bishoprick. While I may disagree with many of his policies (and his office to begin with) I don't want a Bishop of Christ's Church making decisions based on popularity polls.

[Fish and Bread]

Remember this is not a political office but a Bishoprick. While I may disagree with many of his policies (and his office to begin with) I don't want a Bishop of Christ's Church making decisions based on popularity polls.

That's a good point and I am sure that the Bishop of Rome is a very holy well-intentioned man. I just think many of his likely policies run contrary to God's will and God's love.

John

[Slammer]

Mmmh.